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.

Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburgh Phil (Part 1)

/in /by
Pittsburgh Phil: forefather of modern horse betting

Founding father of modern horse betting

George E. Smith, aka Pittsburgh Phil, was one of the most famous horse players of all time. Operating in the late 1800's through to shortly prior to his death in 1905, Smith aggregated close to $100 million in today's money from his on track gambling.

Before he died, he shared his 'maxims and methods' with friend and confidante, Edward Cole, and these were published in 1908. Just the 107 years later, they remain a fine read, flecked with timeless good sense. In this first part of a serialization of Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburgh Phil, Smith shares his overview of what is involved in being a successful horse bettor; and how a day at the track would unfold for him.

PREFACE

Throughout the turf world and throughout the world in general, there live a great many persons who believe that the success of George E. Smith - "Pittsburgh Phil" - on the race track, was due more to a run of good luck than to the employment of skillful business methods.

The writer has seen him make wagers at the tracks on the Metropolitan Circuit and win large sums of money. As now and then the amounts of his winnings became known, spectators sighed and wondered why they could not have been so "lucky" as this clear headed young man hailing from the busiest city of Pennsylvania.

It was not luck that won a fortune for "Pittsburgh Phil." It was the application of one of the shrewdest minds that ever undertook to make racing a business and not a gambling uncertainty. There were times when "Pittsburgh Phil" might have been lucky for a moment, as everybody engaged in business is lucky at some time or another, but for the most part the bulk of his fortune was obtained because he went about the matter of racing on a strictly business basis, and gave exactly as much and similar attention to it as the prosperous broker or banker gives to his.

The peculiar value of this little work is that it contains the only personal interviews which "Pittsburgh Phil" ever gave to any man in regard to the proper methods to be applied to cope with racing and its various emergencies.

Although hundreds tried to interview him at one time or another, he refused absolutely to say anything regarding his manner of handling his wagers, his channels of obtaining information, or the system which he applied to make race speculation worth as much to him as stock speculation is worth to the broker.

To the writer he talked freely. At various times he entered exhaustively into the plans which he had made on various occasions and the methods which he had used to be successful in his business. He considered it as much a legitimate business as trading in cotton or oil. He scouted the notion that anyone could win on the turf purely by luck, and said that the man who would be successful should be able not only to know his horses, but to know the methods of those who were engaged in the direct control of the horses. Further than that he insisted that one must study the bookmakers and their methods, and in this volume it is explained how he managed his affairs so as to win a fortune of more than $1,700,000, by knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing.

George Smith was one of the quietest men who has ever lived in connection with American turf affairs.

When others would be inclined to boast of their success, Smith would shrink from publicity, and fairly run at the sight of a reporter, if he thought one were come to question him about his prosperity.

He began as a cork cutter in Pittsburgh. That life to him was slow and dreary, and he made up his mind early that he would get away from it. He had no fixed plan as to what he would do, but he once remarked rather dryly, "that he thought he could do a little better than cutting corks, inasmuch as he knew how to divide six by two." He was a man of exemplary habits, very fond of his immediate relatives, and never forgetful of a friend.

His first speculation was in baseball. At one time there was not a little betting in Pittsburgh on the national game, a practice which afterward dropped out of fashion. In any event, at this particular period, "Pittsburgh Phil" gathered some ready cash and came to the East to study race track methods.

He did not begin to speculate on the turf extensively until he was well posted, and had become well versed in a great deal of valuable information through experience. He began betting with the proverbial shoestring: then he continued the business which proved so successful until within a short time prior to his death.

The work, to which this is a preface, tells plainly and simply how "Pittsburgh Phil" managed his affairs to accumulate a fortune. Some of it is almost in his exact language, but all of it is authorized and direct. In its way it is a novel addition to turf literature, and it is quite probable that all who are interested in the turf will find a great many hints which will be of assistance to them in the future. Doubtless there will be many who will perceive that speculation on races is not so much blind guessing as it is applied study to the hundred and one details which are necessary to be successful.

- EDWARD W. COLE

 

CHAPTER 1 -- What One Must Know to Play the Races

Playing the races appears to be the one business in which men believe they can succeed without special study, special talent, or special exertion. For that reason the bookmakers ride around in automobiles and eat at Delmonico's, while the majority of the regular race-goers jokingly congratulate themselves lucky if they have the price of a meal and carfare.

Why a man, sensible in other things, holds this idea I have never been able to satisfy myself. He knows, and will acknowledge, that such methods would mean failure to him as a merchant, or as a broker, or as a business man in any other walk of life, but he never seems to apply that knowledge to racing. It must be that the quick "action" hypnotizes him, or the excitement dazzles him, or that he thinks himself too lucky to lose---I never could tell exactly which.

There are many men playing the races, nowadays, and the majority of them are losing. Some are winning, however, and while they are few, they are the characters that we must analyze and whose methods we must study if we would succeed as they do.

Seldom does one hear anything about these men until facts are studied below the surface at the race track. Then you hear everything about them. They are envied; they are called lucky; they are said to be men who always have some unfair advantage in a race. In fact you hear all reports about them except the truth. I am not putting the plunger in this class; that is the man who accumulates a bank roll one day to lose it the next. He is the comet of the racing world. He lights up everything one minute and the next minute he "lights out." Think it over yourself, and count on your fingers the names of the men who have made the flashlight bank rolls at the track. Where are they now? Few can answer. There is no comparison between them and the good solid speculator who studies and works hard to insure success.

Concerning the class that I mentioned above, the class that includes the men who quit winners year after year, one seldom hears of them until able to separate all the elements that go to make up racing. They are orderly, decent and quiet. They go about their business without bluster. They are calm, no matter how much excitement may be around them, for they are only there for business. They would have succeeded, I believe, had they turned their talents in some other direction than toward racing, and when you have analyzed their mental force you will have found men who are cool, deliberate in action, men of strong will power and of a philosophical nature. You will find that all have energy and the bulldog trait of sticking to one idea. You will find them exceedingly quick in sizing up a situation and just as quick to take advantage of it. It does not matter what their breeding may be, their birth or training afterwards, if they have these talents they are almost certain to be men of success. They have gone a long way toward winning before they ever began to bet.

A man who has not an opinion of his own and the ability to stick to it in the face of all kinds of arguments-and argument includes betting odds in a race - has not one chance in a million to beat the races for any length of time. One who is susceptible to "tips," or what is known as paddock information, may get along very well for a while, but I have yet to find one who has stuck to this line who could show a bank roll of any dimensions. Men like Charles Heaney, W. Beverley, "Mattie" Corbett, "Cad" Irish, "Pack" McKenna, "Ike" Hakelburg, and others of their class, all exceedingly successful handicappers, never think of seeking information as a basis for their betting. They rely upon their own judgment entirely and never form that judgment until after the most careful consideration. To them paddock and stable information is only an incident to confirm their previous judgment. Frequently I have met a half dozen owners and trainers of horses which have been entered in the same race and each has told me that his horse could not lose. I therefore had a half dozen "tips" on the same race, and it was there that my own judgment stood me in good stead.

Now what do the form players and successful handicappers know about horses? Well, I might say, incidentally, that they know the capabilities of every good horse in training, and have an accurate idea of what he will do under all circumstances. They know his habits, and his disposition as well, and perhaps better than you know your own brother. They know when he is at his best and when otherwise. They know what weather suits him, what track he likes best, what distance he likes to go, what weight he likes to carry, and what kind of a jockey he likes to have on his back. They know what the jockeys can do and what they cannot do, and in addition to that, they are close observers in the betting ring. If there is anything wrong it generally shows in the market.

Does not that mean some study? Can a man who regards racing as easy, who spends only an hour or so looking up the "dope," figuring upon horses as they would on a piece of machinery by time and weight, know as much as they do? It takes them years of constant close, cool-headed observation to acquire this knowledge, and at that the returns are often meager.

I have said that they know the horses. By this I do not mean that they know all the horses racing. The smartest player does not know every horse that runs any more than he bets on every race. He pays attention only to the better class of horses. The others that win only once or twice a year, he dismisses from his calculation. He knows that upon the money lost on bad horses the bookmaker thrives. But so soon as one of these horses from the rear rank shows any consistent form he is added to the list of representative horses and is thereafter considered.

Being possessed of an extraordinary memory, I can keep all the information I need about a horse in my head. Not all of the men I am speaking of can do this. I can recall a long passed race vividly, every detail of it, the weight carried, the distance, the condition of it and every incident that happened during the running. Few can do this and they have substituted a system of bookkeeping by which they accomplish a similar result.

I have said that a player of the races must be philosophical. He must not get upset by a series of winnings any more than by a succession of losses. The minute a man loses his balance on the race track he is like a horse that is trying to run away. He gets rattled. He throws discretion to the wind. If he is winning he simply believes that he cannot lose, and immediately afterward gets a bump that may put him out of business. If he is losing he becomes the prey of every kind of information and influence. I have known men who bet thousands of dollars on a race when in that state of mind, to play a "tip" given to them by a boy who sells chewing gum, a cast off stable boy, or a bartender.

It has been my observation that the best thing for a man in that condition to do is to leave the track entirely and take a vacation amid other scenes. Racing is not going to stop to-morrow nor next week. It is going on somewhere in the United States three hundred and thirteen days in the year. He can come back and there will be plenty of money for him to win, if he can win it.

One of the important rules of the men who win at the race track is that they must have absolute freedom from distraction and interference of all kinds. The successful race player knows there is a bar and a cafe at the track, and that there are some very interesting conversationalists to be met with every few steps, but he has no time for either the bar or the funny story tellers. I may appear to be exceedingly cold blooded, but for the benefit of my friends, I must say that a man who wishes to be successful cannot divide his attention between horses and women.

A man who accepts the responsibility of escorting a woman to the race track, and of seeing that she is comfortably placed and agreeably entertained, cannot keep his mind on his work before him. Between races, a man has enough to do without replying to the questions asked by her. This is of so much importance in my opinion that it has only been upon very rare occasions, and then in Saratoga, that I have asked even my mother to accompany me. Upon such days the card showed to me that there was little chance for speculation and I would, therefore, be free to devote my time otherwise. A sensible woman understands this and cannot feel hurt at my words. I do not wish to say that she should not be permitted to enter the race track. On the contrary, she is an addition and an adornment to a beautiful scene, and she should always be welcome, but if you are going to make a business of betting, you must not let a thought for anything else interfere.

All consistently successful players of horses are men of temperate habits in life. Speculation on the turf, as in all other kinds of business, requires the best efforts of its devotees. You cannot sit up all night, drink heavily, and dissipate otherwise and expect to win money at the race track. You could not do it in Wall Street, and you could not do it running a store, so why do you expect to do it there? I do not mean that you are not to have any diversion whatever. Healthful recreation and relaxation are just as necessary to the race player as to any other business man. If a man does not get it, he becomes what in turf vernacular would be called "brain sour." If a horse is continually worked and raced he loses his speed, health and ambition and has to be freshened with a rest. He is "track sour" and stale. It is exactly the same with a man, and he will realize it, sooner or later.

I have spoken this way about what kind of man I think the successful race player should be. I have not touched on the morality of playing the races, because i do not think it is under discussion. Some men may say, or think, that racing attended by betting has a harmful influence. I have nothing to say about that. There must be speculation in every branch of business, whether it is racing or keeping a dry goods store. In that respect all business may be said to have a harmful effect also. The ethics of the question do not concern me. Speculating upon racing was the one thing that I believed I was best fitted to do, and therefore 1 did it. I have no regrets or apologies to offer.

 

CHAPTER 2 -- One Day's Work at the Track

There is no better way of making plain what a successful racing man is, than to tell of his day at the track. What he does and what he will not do. How he conducts himself. How he remains always master of the situation and of himself. It seems to me that will be the best kind of a lesson for the man who would like to share with him in his general prosperity.

Preparation for a day at the track begins the night before, of course, for then the entries of the day are studied, impossibilities are eliminated, and the contenders are decided upon. This is succeeded by an early retirement in a condition that will guarantee natural rest from the fatigue of the day at hand. Being of a philosophical frame of mind, as I have said, the excitement and nervous strain of the incidents of the previous day are to be dismissed from the mind, and sleep is to be wooed without a rival.

As a result, the racing man should arise in the morning, cool and clearheaded, and with the first opening of his eyes he should again take up the problem of the day. The horses come before him at once and they never leave until after the contest is decided. I think about them the very first thing when I awaken, weighing them in one light, and from one standpoint and another. As I dress and eat my breakfast, I am placing them here and there, giving each a chance until at last from all standpoints I decide which one, in a truly and perfectly run race, devoid of the hundred or more unlooked for incidents that can happen, should be the winner.

In this frame of mind I go to the track. Once I enter the gate it is all business with me, and my programme of one day does not change. I get the names of the jockeys and the positions of the horses at the post, if it is a race in which I believe there is a fair speculative opportunity. I know, of course, the kind of day it is, and the condition of the track. I next go up into the grand stand and watch the horses warming up. This is of the utmost importance, for although my mind may be centered on two, or possibly three horses, at the same time it is important that I watch the others for fear there may be an unexpected display of form in any of them. If I do not see any of the horses, I had in mind, warm up, I immediately go to the paddock, after having my agent bring me the betting quotations. Arriving there I devote my time and attention entirely to the contenders, as I have picked them, and to nothing else.

It is impossible to overestimate the value of this ability to tell the condition of a thoroughbred. It is the twin sister of handicapping and more important. In that respect the ordinary form handicapper is, so to say, handicapped. What may appear to be right on paper, very, very often is wrong in the paddock. This ability to tell whether a horse is at its best before a race is acquired only after years of the closest kind of study. The merest tyro can tell in a race whether a horse is doing its best, but when it comes to getting a knowledge of what he can be expected to do before a race from a blanketed animal walking about the paddock or standing in his stall, special knowledge is necessary. It is not a talent. A man is not born with it: he must acquire it by hard work and close observation. He must be able to decide whether a horse is in good condition or not, whether he appears to feel like running a race or otherwise.

If a horse looks dull in the eye, dry, or moves and acts sluggishly, it is to me almost a sure sign in the majority of cases that he is not at his best. I say a majority of cases, because there are exceptions to every rule and some of the best horses we have ever bred had no more animation apparently than a "night hawk" cab horse before a contest. Some of these horses need only a warm up gallop on the way to the post to get out of their dull condition. You often see a jockey ride at top speed after the parade in front of the grand stand, to the starting judge, and you may usually depend upon it that it is for livening purposes. Frequently trainers want to deceive the public as to the condition of the horse, by having it appear dull and of little account in the paddock. This helps in the betting, and after all it is not an unfair strategy, because to them it is just as important to win a bet as it is to you and me. It is here that your knowledge of the disposition of a horse will stand you in good stead. If you have studied him properly you will know whether he needs the usual warm up, a preliminary gallop of a quarter of a mile, or a sprint of an eighth, or again simply a jog to the post.

An inspection of the horses in the paddock pays me for another reason. It tells of the nervous condition of a horse. Nerves are as important to a horse in training as to a person engaged in any physical contest. Poor nerves are indicated by "fretting," and a horse that frets is a very dangerous betting proposition. I can illustrate this by one particular instance in which a horse showed to me distinctly that he would not be able to repeat the high class race of a short time before. This was a horse called Pulsus. In my calculations, I became convinced that all other things being favorable he would have an excellent chance to win.

Pulsus did not warm up for the race I have in mind, so I went into the paddock to see him. I was surprised at his appearance. He was as nervous as a horse could possibly be. He had "broken out," so that the perspiration was literally running off his skin in a stream. My eyes told me that he had lost at least one hundred pounds in weight since his last race, and was certainly not within twenty-five pounds of his previous form, simply through nervous strain in his stall and the excitement in the paddock. Pulsus was one of the favorites that day. I forget just what price they were taking, but I know that it was less than two to one. I made up my mind that I would not play him straight, or place, at a thousand to one, so I looked elsewhere for the winner, and I instructed a bookmaker to lay against Pulsus for me straight and place for a considerable sum of money.

The result was a fair winning as Pulsus was nowhere. His energy and stamina gone, he finished back in the ruck.

Now having inspected the three horses, or whatever number I have in mind, as possible contenders, I discover perhaps that one or two of them, in my opinion, are not in the most promising condition to run a winning race. The scene of my operations shifts immediately from the paddock to the betting ring. I find there that the favorite is one of the horses whose looks did not impress me in the paddock and it is here that the first exercise of will power begins.

There is something about a favorite that seems to sway players to bet upon him. Their own judgment in many cases tells them that the horse in question is in a false position, but they become afraid of themselves. A majority of players will fancy that particular horse, and the individual will begin to wonder if his judgment is right. Just as the evening newspapers publish a consensus of the opinions of the newspaper handicappers, so the prices in the ring is publishing the consensus of the best handicappers at the track. It takes a strong man to disregard this, but I have always done so without any hesitation.

No matter what the class, the previous performances, or the prestige of the horse which has been played into favoritism, or the stable to which it belongs, or of the jockey that is to ride, or of the money bet upon it, I look elsewhere for the winner if he does not suit me. Mechanically I take up the second choice and subject it to as severe a handicapping test as was the winner, and if the second choice fails to come up to the standard I pass it by just as willingly as I did the first.

Prices and public opinion have absolutely no influence upon me at this time. I have gone down a list of entries until I have reached a horse that was possibly a rank outsider in the opinion of experts. Upon that horse I pin my faith and upon that horse I bet my money if other circumstances justify me. Men have often wondered how I could play a third or fourth choice in the race. It was simply because my judgment commanded me to do it. I may have been wrong, but after the race I knew why I was wrong. It was costly knowledge, but it was not useless, because it would serve me some other day.

The race is run, let us say. The shouts of the winners and the groans of the losers die away. From the grand stand there comes a rush of men on their way to the betting ring. Some to cash their wagers and others to make wagers on the next race. The horses which have been the object of all their hopes a minute before, are forgotten by the multitude. They are pulled up on the back stretch, turn and canter back to the stewards, the jockeys dismount by permission and the animals are turned over to their handlers with no more than a little perfunctory applause from the grand stand.

I say the multitude has forgotten, the multitude generally, but there are some men at the track to whom this period is of the utmost importance. You will see these men along the rail close to the judges' stand, or up in the big stand with their eyes glued to their field glasses. I have heard the uninformed say, when observing this: "That man is still running the race." It is not necessary to reply to such remarks for time is too precious. I want to know how a horse pulls up after a race, how the effort has affected him, whether he won easily without calling upon his reserve power, or whether he was distressed and all out. Many a time one horse has beaten another by a length or two, but with an expenditure of effort that told, while the beaten horse was not palpably distressed.

It will take considerable time for the winner to recover from his effort. The second horse will be improved by the race. The physical make up of horses has much to do with this. There are some light barreled horses, mares particularly, which feel the effects of a race more than others. Suppose such a mare were entered in a race two or three days later, against practically the same field, being convinced that the strain had told I might bet, other conditions being favorable, on the horse that ran second, or even third. When I have won after such procedure, I have been accused by some of having what they term "an ace in the hole;" that is, they have accused me of having had jockeys pull a horse in one race to make a killing in the next, when it is nothing in the world but my close observation after the previous race had been run.

During the running of the race my glasses never leave the horses engaged. I see every move they make. I can see that this one is not in his stride, or is running unnaturally, or is being ridden poorly. I can see if a horse is sulking, what horse is fit, what horse is unfit. After the race is run, it is sometimes said a horse has had a bad ride, or that the trainer has sent him to the post in an unfit condition, or anything and everything, except the truth.

Knowing the disposition of all the good horses, I am able to say pretty clearly that the failure of a horse to do better was due to chance, or unintelligent handling, perfectly innocent in themselves. Possibly the jockey had given him a cut of the whip at the post, which made him sour; possibly the track did not suit him. His post position, the size of the field or a bump in a jam may have taken away his courage. He may have been bumped on the start, shut off, pocketed, roughed, or interfered with in a dozen ways. Whatever it was I tried to locate the trouble and record it for the future.

Take an illustration of this - Eugenia Burch was a mare that would run an exceptionally good race if she could have an outside position and was not bothered in any way. It was this fact that made her somewhat erratic, as they say, in her running. In a small field, with an outside position she could be expected to show her best form. She could run around her field very impressively. She was naturally a slow beginner and she always had to go around her field. Now if she were in a big field and had an inside position, where she would be bumped and knocked about in the early stages, she would never extend herself until the coast was clear, and then it was usually too late.

Thus she had been beaten often by horses inferior to her, and there had been some comment on that fact by persons who did not understand the mare. I think she was timid and in that particular she was like some jockeys I have known. They will ride much better on the outside than they will in the middle of a bunch. Such riders, I am glad to say, are in a minority, but they exist just the same, and it is for you to find out who they are, and to classify them for future consideration. On the other hand, the majority of the horses and riders are game, and will fight for victory no matter where they are placed.

While speaking about this I can recall seeing horses fight their way through a field irrespective of conditions, ridden at the same time by a timid boy. The spectacle was disheartening to me as it must have been to the horse itself. I have seen a good game horse striving with all his heart, fighting his rider to allow him to push into a space that only his trained eye told him gave him a chance for victory. I have seen these horses plough between two other horses and spread them apart as a giant football rusher will do with only the goal in his mind. Gold Heels was that kind

of a horse. He was always fighting. No matter where he was, or what were the surrounding conditions, he was doing his work like a bulldog. He was never daunted and he never stopped until his physical powers failed. Gold Heels was the "bear," Eugenia Burch was the other extreme. This calls to mind another horse who may be said to illustrate another phase of the case. Previous belonged to M. F. Dwyer, and he was good and game as a horse could be, but there were times when nothing could induce him to extend himself, and those times were when Willie Simms was on his back. Simms was one of the best jockeys this country ever knew, but somehow or other he and Previous could not agree. The rider could use every art he knew, every wile and stratagem, but Previous would not get away at the post, would not run, and would not extend himself. Put a stable boy on the same horse and Previous could be depended upon to run a good race, and when Tod Sloan rode him he would always do his best.

I mention Tod Sloan. In my opinion he was possibly the greatest rider the world ever knew on a sulking horse. I have seen him mount the sourest, sulkiest, most intractable horses in training and have seen them run kindly from beginning to end. He had a happy knack of getting acquainted with a horse as soon as he got on its back. He has always told me that he catered to the disposition of his mount, by allowing it to do as it pleased so long as it was in a good position. His maxim was to hold a horse well together, reserving as much speed as possible for the last moment. On the subject of jockeys I have discovered that there are some who excel on heavy tracks. This may appear strange to the average reader, but it is credible when we remember that there are riders so chicken hearted that if they get hit in the face by a lump of mud they give up all hope of winning. The other boys go on just as determined as ever.

"Skeets" Martin was and is a good mud rider, and it was this knowledge that caused me to put him up on Howard Mann, which won the Brooklyn Handicap, beating my other two entries, Belmar and The Winner. "Tod" Sloan was riding for me then and he knew that Howard Mann could beat good horses in the mud, but he did not think he could outstep Belmar. I believed that Howard Mann could beat Belmar under certain conditions and told Martin so. I believed Martin was better than Sloan in the mud, and when Sloan chose the mount on Belmar I was secretly pleased. The only orders I gave in the race were to Martin to get up on Howard Mann, get off, and go on about his business. I added in a joking way that if "Tod" were within hearing distance of him at the head of the stretch to tell him to hurry home or he would be too late. Whether "Skeets" ever said it I do not know, but if he did "Tod" never heard him; Howard Mann was half way home before Belmar hit the quarter pole.

In his day at the track, the observing player should give a good deal of attention to jockeys. It can be seen that it is not a bad idea to do this. It was worth something to know the capabilities of Martin in the Brooklyn Handicap over a muddy track as well as it is to know the capabilities of a horse. Howard Mann might have won with a less resolute rider, but with Martin up, his chances for winning were vastly better, and consequently there was greater assurance of winning a much larger wager than otherwise. A good rider, a good horse, a good bet, was one of my mottoes.

A good mud rider will frequently bring a bad horse home, because the riders of the good horses are not as game as they might be. Weak boys are always handicapped on a heavy track. At such a time a horse needs help to keep him from sprawling and from wasting the energy which will be useful later. It is the same way with a horse that needs to be hard driven. A strong rider must be given the preference in such cases. I have frequently bet on an inferior horse with a strong boy up.

Many times an even money favorite has a weak boy up - a boy unable, say, to hold him together. At such a time it is a good opportunity for a strong and strenuous interview with our sworn enemies, the bookmakers. It is a good time to look for long shots, and if you are fortunate enough to be in a position to do so get a bookmaker to lay against the favorite for you. It is sure money nineteen times out of twenty.

It is different, of course, in a free running horse. There, the jockey has comparatively little to do and the disposition of the boy does not help so much. All a rider has to do is to sit still and hold his mount together.

There is one other thing that a man should take into consideration in his day in the track, and that is the disposition of the trainers. We have talked about the disposition of the horse and of the jockey, but now about the man who has to do with preparing the horse to race. Of course, you must know who the trainer is, what his connections are, learn his habits and his practices. Even that is not good enough. You must know what his methods are with reference to jockeys. It is a remarkable fact that honest horses ridden by honest boys are oftentimes beaten by honest trainers.

I mean by that, there are hundreds of occasions that trainers and owners give instructions to their riders that mean sure defeat, although the instructions are given with the best intention in the world. I have seen scores of horses beaten because their riders were told, for example, to keep up with the leaders at any cost. I have seen others choked to death because the jockeys have been instructed to lay away a length or two from the pacemakers. Such incidents are of everyday occurrence, and add another element of uncertainty to a most uncertain game at best.

One thing must never be forgotten, that a jockey of brains and understanding, while he will ride to orders as far as possible, will exercise his own judgment in case things are not turning out exactly as the owner or trainer anticipated. It is a poor owner or trainer who feels resentment when this is done by a capable boy. This is what helps to make up a high class jockey. Isaac Murphy, "Jimmy" McLaughlin, Garrison, "Skeets" Martin, "Tod" Sloan, Willie Shaw and boys of their class needed, or need, few instructions. They required to be told the disposition of the horse only, whether sluggish, a sulker, a free runner and how the whip should be used. Loading them down with further orders was like putting on more weight, for in their efforts to follow instructions they were bound to jeopardize their chances of winning.

I once heard a jockey say to a trainer who had dealt out a spasm of orders that would have filled an almanac: "Say, boss, don't you think you had better have those instructions printed in big type so I can read them as the race is being run? I could not remember what you have said to me if I sat up all night to study them, and this race is going to be over in less than two minutes." The trainer got a little angry at this and proceeded to call the boy down until the boy suggested that if he were told to do the best he could to win, the stable would have a better chance of taking down the purse. The trainer thought for a minute and peevishly remarked: "Oh, do what you like."

Then he walked away.

"Them is the best orders any rider with a good horse under him could get," commented the boy, as the line formed for the parade.

It is almost unnecessary to tell what happened in that particular race. The boy was a good boy and he used his judgment. He won in a drive by a neck and he was on the third best horse in the race at that. Had he been hampered by the instructions originally given, I do not believe that he would have finished in the money. It pays you to know the trainers, as I said before, for their habits will sometimes put you on a "good thing" at a good price.

Your day at the track, it can be seen, has been a busy day. There has been no idle moment; there has been no time for friendly conversation, good stories, refreshment at the bar or social meetings. When the last race is over, if you have speculated on two or more events, you will be as tired as if you had been engaged in manual labor for many hours. You will need rest and time for your nerves to become normal. As I stated at the outset, that rest cannot be gained by late hours or dissipation of any kind, but by a sane, temperate, normal course of living.

**

Part 2 - Chapters 3 to 5 (The Reason for Speculation, and Handicapping) can be read here.

 

Getting Physical (and Mental) with the Hill’s

/in /by
Uncle Harry couldn't make it...

Uncle Harry couldn't make it...

I was at the London Racing Club in Gloucester Road last night. So were the Hill's: Lawney, National Hunt (mainly) trainer; husband, Alan, point/hunter trainer; and, son Joe, amateur rider and doubtless someday trainer.

Very pleasant company they were too. Coaxed and cajoled - not that much of either was needed - by Racing UK's Alex Steedman, our panel proffered forth on an array of matters.

Having met in 1985, Mr and Mrs Hill will celebrate thirty years together in September, a happy union that has produced not just young Joe - 19, and so clearly a chip off the old block - but also daughter Gaby, ear-wigging in the audience on this occasion.

It has also yielded not one but two training yards, adjacent, and with different license holders. Under rules, Lawney is the guv'nor, and she's a couple of nice ones to look forward to in the coming months. Between the flags, Alan continues to ply his trade with what seemed to this untutored eye to be a steely resolution, possibly even a stickler's perfectionism. He too has a pair of very interesting ones in waiting. More on both in due course.

As the banter to'd and fro'd, gently guided by MC Steedman, talk turned to ailments. Not the panellists you understand but, rather, frailties in equine stock. Hence the somewhat tenuous title of this 'ere scribble.

Specifically, there was talk of breathing issues. And how they're more likely to affect bigger horses, due to the fact that the nerve which controls the larynx runs from the right side of that area all the way down a horse's back, and then back up the other side to the left of the cob's gob.

So it is, apparently, that it's far more likely for there to be weakness in the left side of a horse's throat than the right.

Why would I be telling you all this? For punting purposes of course...

Because it can lead to a partial or full paralysis of the muscle, which in turn means it can collapse across the airway making for difficulty breathing. And because this was the background to a discussion about some of the various surgical procedures that can be undertaken to correct wind problems.

Lawney eloquently elucidated - with the occasional interjection from Alan - the differences between a 'palate fire', a 'hobday', and a 'tie back' (a more acute operation for more extreme cases). And there was plenty of discussion about the fact that these surgical procedures do not currently have to be declared to the BHA.

Given how material an impact they can have on a horse's performance, it seems an absolute slam dunk that they should be noted, in much the same way that a gelding operation is, on the horse's form record. That it is not surely contravenes the BHA's own guidance on 'inside information'... at least, there is a strong argument to that end.

For instance, I know of two horses that have had wind operations in a stable that I'm close to. I'm not at liberty to say which they are because they're not my horses. This information is still in the realms of "owner's prerogative", and in the information age, that's wrong. According to the panel at least. (I tend to agree).

So the fact that the likes of Paul Nicholls and Nicky Henderson, perennially atop their peer group, resort to such intervention on such a regular basis can be seen as further affirmation to its materiality. The Denizen of Ditcheat is reputed, according to Joe, to have about 60 horses a year treated in this way, and it was conjectured that Hendo would likely have a similar number of palates sizzled and twiddled.

Joe went on to make a really noteworthy point about Nicholls, and one which might be widely known, but was a new one on me. He made reference to the positive impact of first time headgear on Ditcheat inmates. Now, as someone who has habitually dismissed headgear as a sign of desperation on doggy nags or naggy dogs, I had to look into this further.

Sure enough, young Joe is onto something. Here's the data, courtesy of those fine people at horseracebase.com:

Interesting...

Interesting...

 

Looking at the year on year data, it seems there might have been some sort of epiphany too. Judging by the increased samples, it seems unlikely to be merely coincidence...

 

Interesting... Very interesting

Interesting... Very interesting

Note the relative nothingness of numbers of runners and strike rate, leading to a general leakage of cash for backers, up to 2013.

Then, look, the number of first-time headgear donners trebles, and then quadruples, and profits emerge at the same time. For such a high profile yard, this is a weirdly profitable angle.

Drilling into the data for the past three years is perilous, due to the possibility of statistical insignificance on less than a hundred runners... but let's do it anyway!

Crikey!

Crikey!

Crikey! The fabled hood, settler of many a buzzy beast, has hardly helped Captain Pumpkin and his band. And yet the initial application of either blinkers or the pieces has produced winners at a 30%+ clip. That's in the context of a trainer at the top of his game, who has struck with un-accoutred horses 'only' 22% of the time. Yikes! Good spot, Joe.

But I digress. The gurgly-windy situation of horses struggling to breathe evolved into chat about its low-tech alternative, the tongue tie. Often no more than a nylon stocking tied around a horse's tongue - hence the name, brilliant, right? - to keep it from flapping about and blocking the flow of oxygen, the tongue tie was hailed as a wonder of modern design by Alan.

Moreover, he noted that it is often not on the first application that a horse derives the benefit. This, he opined, was due to the fact that a horse that has been struggling with a breathing issue will, at a certain point in its exercise/stress cycle, expect to encounter difficulty breathing.

Thus, it will recoil or otherwise act to prevent the struggle for breath. It is only by going through this mental barrier - see, there's the second bit of the (granted, inordinately laboured) headline - and realising that hey, actually, that wasn't so bad, a horse will be increasingly more likely to put the full shift in.

I wanted to look at this for data corroboration (I'm a bit sad like that) and, sure enough, Mr H is spot on. I'd heard it said before about wind ops that, for exactly the same reasons, a horse can often derive more benefit from the operation on its second and subsequent starts than first time after. (That may depend on whether the nag has been pushed beyond its threshold in training or not - some work their horses harder than others...)

Again, I asked horseracebase to show me the performance of horses wearing a tongue tie, based on the number of times the apparatus - OK, the stocking - has previously been applied. Again, the findings were instructive, and in line with what those wily Hill's were saying.

The chart below shows how horses wearing a tongue tie fared, based on the number of previous times they'd worn a tongue tie. So for instance A) 0, the first line, is for horses wearing a tongue tie for the very first time.

Tongue tie performance, by previous uses...

Tongue tie performance, by previous uses...

What's really interesting about this is that it seems, judging by win and/or place strike rate, that a horse will continue to improve for the application of the tongue tie for up to ten runs.

There is nothing to trouble the profit and loss judges in this dataset - not on its own, at least - but the conformity of the curve, and the size of the sample, means that the results look highly significant.

Incidentally, in case you're wondering which horses have had 131+ career starts wearing a tongue tie, the two that accounted for those 24 runs were Jonnie Skull and Cape Royal. As you might have guessed, I was!

What else did we learn last night?

We learned that Venetia Williams' horses don't have an affinity with rain, mud and heavy ground by accident. Rather, they're pretty much all turned out in a field - dressed accordingly, natch - every day, regardless of the inclemency of the elements.

Here are the data for Venetia's handicappers, by going:

Let's go mudding with Venetia's!

Let's go mudding with Venetia's!

Again, although the softies actually returned a small profit at BSP, more tweaking would be required to turn this into a profitable angle. But the respective strike rates speak for themselves.

Highest win rate on heavy, next highest on soft, next highest on good to soft... an interesting snippet to file in the data banks.

[We also learned that Alex would rather be a diary entry in Venetia's log book than read her entries, but that's a tale for after the watershed...]

And so, as the evening drew to its end, the inevitable, and always welcome, "giz' a horse" question was asked.

Joe responded with Brians Well, which runs at Higham point to point on Sunday (does anyone know how to get a bet on a point-to-point without going? If not, is anyone going?!)

Alan offered his 'milk bottle' horse - one for which he's been posting twenty's into a glass vessel each week prior to its first run - which, I hope he doesn't mind me sharing, is Harris Garden. No engagement as yet, but added to my geegeez tracker!

And Lawney told us that she's very hopeful for Shimba Hills, a stoutly bred ex-Mick Channon inmate, who has run really well in two novice hurdles, and now has a mark of 116 which is felt to be workable. Taunton on 5th February is the current plan.

If it's not too presumptuous or incongruent, I'd like to add my own 'one to follow' from the Lawney stable - remember she was flagged in this post as a friend to punters. Since that post was published, the nominated horse there, Changeofluck, finished second at 8/1 on its only subsequent start.

That one could win soon, but one that really catches my eye is So Oscar, a nicely bred son of Oscar, who was good enough to win a bumper just over a year ago. Since then he's been lightly raced, but qualified for his handicap mark last week when sixth at Fakenham.

A rating of 113 is far from punitive, and I reckon this lad will be winning soon on top of the ground.

So there you have it, a night with the Hill's. Engaging company, and some insightful pearlz amidst the bantz, as the kids might say.

Stat of the Day: The 2014 Review

/in /by
SotD: Review of 2013

SotD: Review of 2014

Today, New Year's Eve 2014, sees the end of the third full calendar year for Stat of the Day, which was Geegeez' first real venture into daily tipping.

We know we've acquired lots of new subscribers of late, 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 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 both myself and Matt, 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.

A full month-by-month analysis of SotD's results can, of course, always be found at
http://www.geegeez.co.uk/stat-of-the-day-month-by-month/ , but the overall picture for 2014 was as follows:

Number of bets/selections/pts wagered: 305
Winning Bets: 84
Strike Rate: 27.54%

Yearly Profit: 88.38pts
Profit on Stakes Invested: 28.98%

These are quite phenomenal figures, if we say so ourselves and we'll be doing our level best to maintain our success in 2015.

Thanks for sticking with us/SotD,
Chris & Matt

***Stat of the Day is just one component of the excellent package available to all Geegeez Gold Members, so why not take your free trial now?

Click here for more details.

How To Back “Impossible” Handicap Winners

/in /by
Saint Helena winning wasn't a bit shock

Saint Helena winning wasn't a big shock...

Backing winners is about more than just horse form. As runners get more experience, and become more exposed, so they become more quantifiable in their own right. But for the first part of a horse's career the modus operandi of its trainer is often a more effective barometer of win probability than what a particular beast has achieved on the track.

In a country where 63% of races run under all codes are handicaps (12,615 of 19,969 in 2013 and 2014, up to 16th December) and, moreover one where the paucity of prize money relative to upkeep costs is among the lowest in the world, the ability to handicap a horse to win is almost a prerequisite for any right-thinking customer-facing trainer.

Clearly, the above paragraph won't sit easily in all quarters, but those who drive the race planning agenda - bookmakers, racecourses, the BHA, and the horseman's group - all have their hand on the knife which has carved this route to the winner's enclosure.

Like it or not, handicaps will remain the staple of British racing fare, unless or until an effective claiming system - and attitude to claiming races, and the fact that horses can actually be claimed (*gasp*) from such races - is introduced.

So that leaves us as punters with a choice: we either ignore all but top class races and exposed form handicaps, or we get smart to the rules of the game... and its finest exponents. This post is about bringing the reader up to speed (to some degree, at least) with the latter.

The Circumstances

The first thing to consider are the circumstances under which 'improvement' might be expected. Horses usually graduate to handicap ranks through either maiden races (flat) or novice races (jumps). These races accommodate horses of any and all abilities. So it was that, for example, in Frankel's maiden victory, as well as other Group 1 performers like Nathaniel and Colour Vision, there was also a horse called Castlemorris King.

Castlemorris King has a current flat rating of 66, which is very similar to the initial mark of 60 he was awarded in late September 2010 ahead of his first handicap. In fairness to Castlemorris King, he's a fair hurdling stick - rated 130-odd over obstacles - but he does serve to illustrate the 'all abilities under one race banner' point.

The same is true in novice hurdles, and in subsequent Champion Hurdler Rock On Ruby's opening hurdle win a horse called Charles finished last. Charles went on to win a Class 5 handicap hurdle - when rated 90 - while Rock On Ruby achieved a career high rating of 170.

Incidentally, Charles won that event - his only win in a 15 race career - on his first run in a handicap. Which leads me nicely on to the point here...

Horses moving from maiden or novice - in other words, open - company to far more restricted ability races logically have a better chance of winning. If I'm racing against Usain Bolt over 60 metres, I'm going to get beaten out of sight. However, if I'm running in the dad's race at the school sports day, I... well, let's just say I won't get beaten quite so far!

Handicaps group together horses of relatively similar ability. When horses have run twenty times and more, that's easy enough. But when they've had the obligatory three runs in maiden/novice company, it's somewhat more of a jelly-nailing exercise for the assessors.

The issues facing those charged with allocating initial ratings are compounded by the system - a system where, as I've written, keeping at least some of one's ability powder dry is fundamental.

A trainer may disguise a horse's ability by any or all of the following:

- Running it over the wrong trip

- Running it on the wrong ground

- Running it when 85% fit

- Running it with (or without) headgear

- Running in a hotter than average maiden/novice

- Running on an unsatisfactory track

Examples of this happen every day, up and down the country, and it is utterly pointless a) thinking they don't, or b) getting even remotely upset or moralistic about it.

Why?

It is a professional game, and a lot of money is at stake even at the grass roots level of the sport. Prize funds that are currently comparable with 2008 against a cost of living now more than 25% dearer do not help the situation.

But let's face it. Even if prize money was twice as much, the game would go on. Maybe there would be less of it; maybe there wouldn't. As trainers and owners playing an expensive game, the job is to be the best you can within the rules of the game. Better yet, within the shaded edges of the rules of the game.

And if you think this is a game reserved for the training Potless Pete's, then consider this esteemed band: Sir Mark Prescott, Luca Cumani, Jonjo O'Neill. An Englishman, an Irishman, and an Italian, all towards the head of their peer group in performance terms, and all dab hands at the handicap plot/blot.

Moreover, they undertake these machinations not for Potless Pete the owner, but for billionaires like JP McManus and Kirsten Rausing.

Why would a billionaire want to land a touch? Maybe to win a few quid - after all, you can never have enough quids - but more likely for the thrill of the sport; for the game.

We as punters need to get over any personal prejudices we have about such behaviour, for two related reasons. Firstly, it's plain stupid to perpetuate a cycle of whinging when the wool has ostensibly been pulled over one's peepers. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, etc.

And secondly, there's gold in them there hills... if we can be arsed to look for it. The good news is that, with a slight shift in focus, it's a lot easier to find a horse about to reveal significant improvement than it is to conjecture about the fractional gains which could make the difference in a field of exposed handicappers.

Who?

So let's take a hard look at the players. The guys and girls who know their business, and the parameters within which their business resides, and who do the best for their owners irrespective of the bill-payers' position on the net worth continuum.

I wrote about one such, Jim Best, previously. That post is here. In it, I showed that, far from being unfair to punters, Best is actually giving us highly likely winners if we choose to take them. The details in his approach - late jockey switches and all - are not to all tastes. Frankly, they're not to mine.

But the fact that he's used the EXACT same blueprint SEVEN times - and five times in the past eighteen months - means if we're on the wrong side of that punting fence, it's not sonny Jim's fault.

We live in an information age. If you're reading this, and you still choose to look at the little string of six digits, letters and punctuation points to the left of a horse's name to inform a wagering decision, you have absolutely no right to complain if Jim Best or anyone else bags a winner unbacked by you because you couldn't find a sequence of 1's, 2's and 3's in that sextet of symbolic nothingness.

Sites like racingpost.com and sportinglife.com shine a dim light on trainer patterns; while sites like geegeez.co.uk and timeform.com will blaze the interrogation lamp from time to time. And, as in this post, the good ones do it presciently rather than retrospectively.

This section - entitled  'Who?' - is a tricky one, mainly because, as I've said, any handler worth his/her fee will be capable of identifying opportunities for their owners. However, some are more adept than others, and keeping them on the right side will make you money.

Geegeez Gold, the premium part of this website, is a treasure trove of form shortcuts, one of which is a report called Trainer Handicap First Run (Code). Snappy the title may not be, but this little beauty does what it says, flagging those with excellent recent records when placing a horse in a handicap for the very first time:

An example of the excellent Handicap 1st Time report

An example of the excellent Handicap 1st Time report

 

When it comes to betting, why whinge when you can win? Isn't there as much joy in unravelling a trainer-based puzzle as there is in untangling a horse form head scratcher?

When?

The most likely time for a horse to show marked improvement is under markedly different conditions. Sounds obvious, right? So why do some of us keep ignoring it?! [Rhetorical. We both know it's because some of us are too lazy to look at the horse with the 000 form until after it's won ;-)].

Right, let's shortcut this.

1. Move from maiden/novice to handicap

Regardless of code - flat or jumps - for most horses outside of the top class, the best chance they will ever have to win a race is their first run in a handicap. That move from open company, against the Frankels and the Rock On Ruby's of their world, to the company of hairy brutes half a rung up the food chain from a Tesco slaughterhouse (figuratively speaking) is a huge opportunity.

Of course, some are simply destined to drop down that half a rung or, more enchantingly, be rehoused as pets. But many will suddenly step forward, in finishing position terms at least.

The easiest way to see if this is 'expected' is to check the geegeez.co.uk racecard (Gold users only, I'm afraid). An HC1 icon indicates first run in a handicap. Clicking the trainer form icon will then display that trainer's record with first time handicap starters in the previous two years:

In depth lowdown on a trainer's first time handicap record right in the racecard

In depth lowdown on a trainer's first time handicap record right in the racecard

 -

2. Step up (or occasionally down) in trip

If Usain Bolt ran over 800 metres, that boy would be puffing out of his pipe on the second lap. He's simply not designed for it. Likewise, if a son of Presenting rocks up in a six furlong sprint, he might just finish before the next race is ready to start. He too is likely not equipped for that sort of a speed test.

There are always genetic exceptions - triple Grand National winner Red Rum won a sprint as a two year old - but one cannot bet too much on such unlikely possibilities.

How can we know if a horse is likely to appreciate a change in trip? Click the TRAINER and SIRE icons on the geegeez.co.uk racecard:

Trainer AND Sire insights on distance movers

Trainer AND Sire insights on distance movers

 

In the image above, we can see both the trainer's record in the last two years with horses stepping up 25% or more on the flat (we also display the same for jumps horses stepping up 20% or more in trip), and the sire performance in the distance range.

In this example, we see that Kevin Ryan has a 25% strike rate (62.5% in the frame) when stepping horses up markedly in distance. We can also see that the sire, Frozen Power, has an overall two-year win rate of 7.54% (place 24.35%), but this improves to 11.03% win/ 26.62% place wihth middle distance flat horses. As such, Strummer might be expected to go better than a 20/1 shot, all other things being equal.

 

3. Change in the going

Knee action. You may or may not have heard of it. You may or may not be able to discern it when watching a horse canter to the start. In all honesty, you don't need - or kneed - to know about it. What you do need to know is whether a sire's progeny generally handle any change in underhoof conditions, either quicker or slower. This info can be found in a range of locations, including in Gold's Full Form Filter, my personal favourite (natch).

On the Full Form tab, click the 'Sire' button, and choose the 'Going' filter. Feel free to select a specific race type, periodicity and/or anything else you consider material.

At any rate, a first run in a handicap, especially when it coincides with a first run on significantly different ground than previously encountered, should set the ding-a-lings ringing.

 

4. Running after a layoff

Now here's a thing. A horse suddenly takes support having been off the track for two or three months. It had three runs close together before the break and they all culminated in duck eggs. How can he possibly win? Well, what if he'd been at the training equivalent of Butlin's around the time of those racecourse spins, and has since had two months hard labour in an equine Gulag? (Again, humour me, it's figurative prose).

Again, Gold's Trainer Snippets have this covered:

Most horses are at their fittest when the money's down. Go figure.

 

5. Headgear switch

Blinkers on. Blinkers off. Hood on. Visor. Eyeshields. Cheek pieces. If a horse has run a hundred times already - or even a dozen - the application of headgear may generally be seen as a sign of desperation. Unless it's the re-application of headgear, in which case it should be seen as a sign of an expectation of performance in line with the last time the equipment was added/removed.

Take a look at Discoverie's form overall, and then solely with today's headgear (second image below).

Discoverie: All Runs

Discoverie: Today's Headgear only

The hood is good, especially for keen-goers, so if a horse has pulled in those early runs and now gets a hood applied for its first handicap, it gets an extra point from me.

 

6. Combo la Bombo!

Any of the above is worth a second glance. Any combination of the above is worth a leisurely lingering third glance. Especially if it's 1. with any others.

 

Who? Part 2: The Specifics

I keep track of certain individuals under certain conditions in the Geegeez Tracker tool.

This is not just a game played by Potless Pete. And, as Jim Best's omission from my own list demonstrates, there are plenty more of these lads and lasses making it pay for those who pay them, and those who pay heed to them. It is your job to seek them out - believe me, once you're tuned it, it's not difficult!

 

Final Thoughts

We all know it  happens. Some accept handicap 'jobbing' as part of the game, and embrace it within their punting MO. Others resent it, and curse the actors rather than their own simplistic or partial methods when an apparently impossible punt is landed.

With early markets flagging 'springers' and a raft of tools (including our Trainer Handicap First Time report) able to trap similar patterns in trainer behaviour, there really is no excuse - time constraints aside - for allowing what can be very decent betting opportunities to pass you by. Even if you are hamstrung by time, it takes a few seconds to spot a curio in the betting market, and check for material differences in today's race conditions. And no more than 30 seconds to check our report.

Trip, ground, handicap first time, class drop. Easy to spot. If you're looking. But none are in the form string to the left of the nag's name. Readers are encouraged to ask their own questions where time allows. But, as a bare minimum, I hope this article serves to demonstrate that the seemingly esoteric manoeuvres of horsemen and women can be understood - at a high level anyway - and profited from by pretty much all of us.

Matt

p.s. If you liked this post, please use the 'share' buttons to tell others. And if you're not yet a Gold subscriber, click here for news on a special trial offer.

Why Contrast is King When Seeking Good Bets

/in /by

What makes a good bet? Obviously, after the event, any winner is ostensibly a good bet, but many winners are still more 'lucky' than 'good'. In this post, I want to share an approach to finding good bets which has served me very well down the years, and which has been built right into the geegeez.co.uk racecards.

The Contrast Principle

You may or may not be familiar with the contrast principle, which has many applications. It is used in art, in design and in selling. What the contrast principle seeks to do is to emphasize something in relation to its surrounding environment.

The contrast principle in design/marketing

The contrast principle in design/marketing

So, for example, in design, the contrast principle generally uses a vibrant colour as a background for a silhouetted figure or object. Here's an example of contrast principle in design from one of the biggest marketing companies on the planet.

Note how the black silhouette in the foreground stands out against the green backdrop; and, of course, note how the white product - an iPod - stands out against both.

Bad design contrast

Bad design contrast

Each element is easily recognisable from the others.

Now take a look at the second image, where the contrast is progressively less distinct.

Whilst the top statement is clearly visible, the middle one is tough to read, and the bottom one is very difficult to make out.

At this stage you would be forgiven for wondering what all this has to do with the price of fish. Or, more pertinently still, with the pursuit of good bets. So let's zone back into the betting angle, the scene having been set.

**

Good horses do not automatically make good bets

The first challenge we as punters face is identifying the right races in which to wager. Every day, bookmakers will feature one or more races, with enhanced odds or place terms or other concessions.

There is, naturally, a reason they're prepared to do that. And the reason is that finding winners in such races is generally bloody hard! Despite such races often being the highest quality events of the day, with the deepest level of competition, they do not offer bettors any kind of natural edge.

That's because the relative ability range is normally quite tight: put another way, many of the horses will be in form, come from top stables, have scope to improve, and so on. The horse player consequently has to assimilate the known - form in the book, trainer form, etc - with the unknown - how much more a horse may be able to produce in this race.

That's a trappy old conundrum and, whilst one may occasionally have a strong view not already echoed by the market, such opportunities are rare.

**

It's all about good races (which is to say, bad races)

Good races, as opposed to good horses, are what make for good bets. And such good races are very often bad races. Eh?! OK, let's get to the rub. My point is this. Good races in which to bet are those where one horse, or in certain circumstances more than one, stand out but are overlooked by the market. For my preferred approach, such races generally share a set of characteristics, as follows:

- Comprised entirely of exposed horses, none of which can be expected to leap forward to a career high today

- Small fields of ten or less runners

- A questionable favourite being asked to do something it has either not previously attempted, or has previously failed at

Let's look at each of these in turn.

First, we want races where pretty much all of the evidence exists in the form book. Older horse handicaps, claiming races, and the like work very well for these sort of purposes.

Secondly, it pays to find races where there is a manageable number of runners. That leads to less 'luck in running' sob stories, and less chances for a fairly well treated rival to usurp our fancy.

And thirdly, crucially, we need another animal in the race to exaggerate the price of our horse. These obvious types are almost always overbet and, in the competitive market space, that means support for one horse leads to resistance for most of the rest. Or, in plain terms, bigger prices for most of the rest.

**

How to find a bet - finding one to be against

In order to find good bets that meet the approach outlined above, we need to be doing something the market is not doing. In order to do that, we need to know what the market is doing.

Here's a caricature of market behaviour in two sentences:

1. Once a horse starts to become well backed, a snowball effect often transpires where brainless punters are keen to be on 'the gamble' irrespective of the price being offered and, therefore, the value proposition

2. A horse that won last time or, better still, that was considered unlucky in running last time, is almost always overbet.

So, if we can find a horse that either won the last day or has been touted as an 'unlucky loser', we may well have a falsely framed market. Last time out winners win their next start approximately one in six times. Which is to say they don't win their next start five times out of six. Obviously, not all last time out winners are equal, but as a general principle, this still works.

It's my opinion that the market over-reacts - often significantly - to recent form. It does this seemingly regardless of any material changes in the conditions of today's event in comparison with those of recent performances from the entries.

Let's take an example from yesterday.

Annaluna was running in a seven runner mares' handicap hurdle at Chepstow and opened up 13/8 favourite on the back of a last day win, her first for two years over hurdles. She was backed in to 5/4 at the off. This despite her previous soft ground form reading 63344, and despite three of those runs being when priced at 10/3 or shorter, two of them as favourite.

With 26 runs to her name already, Annaluna was unlikely to improve this time and, at the price, was a very poor value proposition. Annaluna finished fifth of seven.

I backed the winner in this race, an unexposed type from a team who do well with horses having their first runs in handicap hurdles. This was a bet made possible by what I perceived to be a terribly short priced favourite. (Note, it wasn't necessarily a good bet as the market drift suggested I'd got it wrong!)

A good bet 'magicked' from a bad value favourite

A good bet 'magicked' from a bad value favourite

**

How to find a bet - finding one to be with

Unless you're a layer, it's all well and good finding a questionable horse at the top of the market, but we still need to find one to bet against it. And here's where the contrast principle kicks in. We're looking for a horse whose recent form is probably not at the level of those who make the market, but who has 'back class' - and excuses!

The most important factor for me is the strength of a horse's historical form profile. That, allied to its price, determines how many excuses I am prepared to make for ostensibly poor (or genuinely poor!) performances since previous highs.

It's easier to grasp this with an example, so let's take a convenient one from, again, yesterday. The 2.05 at Market Rasen was a handicap hurdle where the least exposed horse in the field had had fourteen runs already. In other words, none of the five was likely to leap forward on their known level of ability. A good starting point.

It also featured a horse which had been plunged upon: Home Run was having his first start since March and was backed into 13/8 favouritism for a respected trainer - David Pipe - who was also in form. But Home Run, whilst liking soft ground (three wins from six previously), had failed to win in seven prior attempts in Class 2 company. And here he was, a 13/8 shot, on his 24th career start. This was looking promising.

But then I needed to find one to be with. Enter Master Of The Hall. Here was a horse - now ten - who, in his day, had won a Listed chase at Aintree, the Grade 2 Reynoldstown Chase at Ascot, and a Class 2 chase at Kelso. He'd achieved those victories on ground ranging from heavy to good, and all four of his chase wins had been within a quarter mile of three miles - today's trip - and with between three and five rivals.

Moreover, in the hurdles sphere, Master Of The Hall had won two races in 2014, both at Market Rasen. Indeed, since mid-May, he'd run five times at Rasen with form figures of 21312.

So what price do you think Master Of The Hall was sent off here? 9/2? 6/1? How about 25/1?

Huge price for a horse with his profile

Huge price for a horse with his profile

Remember what I wrote about excuses at the top of this section? The striking thing about Master Of The Hall is that we didn't even have to make any excuses for him. In his previous three runs, he'd won over course and distance (albeit in Class 4), finished a close second, and then fell when disputing in the latter part of the race last time. Hardly a string of duck eggs, is it?

[It should be said that Home Run was going well when falling late in the race, but Master Of The Hall ran on right to the line, and there's no saying Home Run - not always the strongest finisher - would have seen his job out had he remained upright].

**

The hard way to do this, and the easy way

As with most things in life, there's a hard way to find bets like these... and there's an easy way.

The hard way is to use a racing form database, or perhaps Racing Post online (forget about the newspaper, complete waste of time for betting purposes, and I absolutely genuinely mean that. I pity people trying to win at betting on horses who are exclusively using the Racing Post newspaper), and to trawl through the form of each horse individually to find a horse with back class, and an acceptable number of excuses.

Just finding a horse with the right profile would involve sifting through every runner in every race, or at least the majority subset without recent form.

And then there's the easy way.

Geegeez Gold has a daily report called The Shortlist. It looks a bit like this.

The Shortlist report, 20th November 2014

The Shortlist report, 20th November 2014

The Shortlist condenses the best 'profile fit' horses against the conditions of the race in which they're running in today (and tomorrow).

Note the 'line of green' for Master Of The Hall at the very top of the report, and his score of 15 on the right hand side (click any image in this post to open it full size in another window).

Also note that there were no other entries on The Shortlist for his race, the 2.05 Market Rasen. This is really important from the perspective of the contrast principle I've alluded to already. Clicking on the race time takes users directly to the Instant Expert grid, a visual form profile for all of the runners in the race in a single view, and from which The Shortlist is derived.

Here's the Instant Expert for the 2.05 Market Rasen yesterday:

 

See how not only did Master Of The Hall have the full 'green carpet', implying a royal betting opportunity, but his form profile was in stark contrast to the red and occasional amber of his rivals, all of whom had multiple knocks against at least one of yesterday's core conditions.

Bets like these, at these sorts of prices, come along once or twice a week. They obviously don't all win. If they did, I'd be writing this as part of my retirement keynote speech from a beach in Barbados (or, more likely, San Diego). But 25/1 winners with blatant credentials do come along a number of times a year. And shorter priced horses - though still value propositions in the context of their races - crop up daily.

Gold subscribers can get The Shortlist every day from the Report Selector dropdown:

If you're not a Gold subscriber, you'll still be able to see The Shortlist report on Tuesdays, though you won't be able to look at the Instant Expert grids to compare and contrast.

You do however have access to Instant Expert grids on Thursdays - so you could have manually found Master Of The Hall yesterday - and can very quickly spot possible 'of interest' horses. By "very quickly", I mean within three minutes for a day when there are four meetings.

This is just one of the amazing winner-finding features of Geegeez Gold, where we do things a bit differently and, I like to think, a bit better. Stat of the Day is the first port of call for most Gold subscribers, and that one a day tipping service has bagged a whopping 96.43 points profit to the end of October, with just one losing month.

That's an average of 9.643 points per month profit which, even at £3 a point, would more than cover the cost of subscribing.

To join the hundreds of Gold subscribers in what I think is the most comprehensive and user-friendly tipping and form-based service in the UK is just £24 a month. Or, £16.42 per month if you take an annual subscription. These prices WILL be rising in the new year because, frankly, there's too much content and value to justify such a low fee.

Existing subscribers will remain on the tariff they signed up to, a token of appreciation to those who have supported Gold thus far, and by doing so have enabled the ongoing development which has brought us to where we are.

So don't miss the bus, especially as you get a 30 day trial for just £1 with access all areas:

JOIN GEEGEEZ GOLD

If you've not yet sampled the amazing winner-getting tools and tips inside Geegeez Gold, you can take a 30 day £1 trial by clicking this link.

Have a profitable day!

Matt

How to Bet (and Win) on Exacta

/in /by
Shedding some light on the exacta...

Shedding some light on the exacta...

In this latest instalment of the Oc-Tote-ber series, let's take a look at the exacta, a bet which requires the player to nominate the first and second placed horses in the correct order. The exacta is a pool bet, which means the dividend is declared by dividing the total number of winning tickets by the total pool of funds, after deductions.

For instance, if £10,000 was bet, and 20% deducted for expenses, the net pool would be £8,000. Supposing there were 80 winning tickets of £1 (£80), the dividend would be £8,000/80 = £100.

The game is to find the 1-2's that pay more than they should, and to leave the 1-2's that pay less than they should. So how exactly (or exacta-ly) do we do that?

 

How Not To Play The Exacta

Before we get to the good stuff, I'd like to debunk a few myths about exactas. Specifically, I'd like to look at some bad bets.

Bad bet #1: First three in the market combination exacta

The ultimate mug bet in exacta terms, this involves six combinations, all equally staked:

1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2

Because exactas are 'bets of the people' - that is, there is no bookmaker setting the prices, but rather the people playing the bet set the odds - and most people are either lazy or don't have any sort of opinion on a given race, this is where the vast majority of wagering falls.

This sort of bet can account as much as, or more than, half of the total pool, meaning even if the result is the least likely of the six possible outcomes, it is sure to return a deflated yield.

Apart from operating at the very top of the market, and being deeply unimaginative, it also has no merit over a straight win bet.

Imagine that the average payoff for these six combinations was £15 for a £1 stake. That means a £6 bet covering all six combinations returns £15. That gives average odds of 6/4 on your £6 bet. The favourite could well be a longer price than that on its own, let alone the second or third market choices.

You can also expect to be disappointed with the dividend if the second and third market choices finish 1-2, due to the number of other punters that have taken the same well-worn path to the bet - and then the payout - windows.

Here's the management summary: if you think the top of the market will win a race, either bet a win single on your main fancy (or value fancy)... or pass the race. There is simply no point in making a combination exacta including the first three in the betting, ever.

Bad bet #2: Level staking on combinations

A subtle nuance of bad bet #1 is that all combinations have the same amount of money wagered upon them. That means the 6/4 favourite to beat the 4/1 shot has the same bet stake as the 4/1 to beat the 7/2 second favourite (assuming the top three in the market were 6/4, 7/2 and 4/1). This leads to 'prayer mat punting': hoping that the least likely of the six combinations lands even though... well, even though it's the least likely combination.

That cannot be a sensible way to bet. It is slightly more sophisticated - and commensurately more time-consuming - to stake different combinations to different amounts to ensure a more level payout regardless of which of your six combo's cops. Although this is less 'sexy' and involves less scope for the 'big coup', it is also far more likely to return a profit in the longer term.

Blind combination bets are generally not a great way forward in any case, but if you do have difficulty separating three or more horses, then at least stake them according to the likely payouts to reward yourself equally if you're correct about it being between these x horses.

Bad bet #3: Betting 'All' or most with an outsider you quite fancy

This is the chocolate teapot of wagering approaches: something good (chocolate, or an opinion on a decent priced horse) utilized in a completely useless manner (teapot, or betting with 'all').

By using so many options with your dark horse, you completely dilute the value of the opinion. Far better to bet the horse to win, or maybe even each way, than to make an exacta with all/most of the other runners in the race, and hope to catch a second biggie in the first two for a monster return. This is another prayer mat punt.

Bad bet #4: Leaving out the favourite 'because it's the favourite'

I know people who do this. It's daft. They kick themselves when the favourite, which they feared/respected, finishes second to a decent-priced horse. Dividends for bigger priced nags to beat the jolly are often bigger than they ought to be (assuming the bigger priced horse is lower down the market rank than third or fourth).

If you think the favourite looks solid for the frame, you have two choices:

1. If you have another opinion that could 'make' the bet, then play them together

2. If you don't have another opinion, or you think the 2nd or 3rd market pick could join the jolly, move on to another race

You don't have to bet, and if you don't have two good views, then your bet will probably be misguided (i.e. lose) or return less than it should (i.e. be poor value)

**

If you recognise any of the above traits in the way you bet exactas, now is a good time to review your approach, and to consider an alternative. Below are some alternative methodologies - or exactologies - that you might want to employ.

How To Play The Exacta

Good bet #1: 'Down market' staggered stake combo

In my examples, I've used starting price notation (6/4, 7/2, etc) to highlight the strength of support for each horse. But with all tote multi-horse or multi-race bets, it helps the player greatly to think less in terms of market price, and more in terms of market rank.

Let's look at a 10/1 shot (industry odds) in two different races.

In race 1, a four horse race, there is a 1/16 favourite, and the 10/1 shot is second choice, with two complete no hopers prices at 66/1 apiece.

In race 2, a nine horse race, there is a 4/1 favourite, five more horses priced between 9/2 and 8/1, our 10/1 shot, a 12/1 and a 20/1 chance.

If you expect the tote prices on those two 10/1 chances to be roughly equivalent, you will be badly wrong. The former is likely be around 5/1 on the 'nanny' (nanny goat = tote), while the latter could be as big as 20/1 depending on how 'obvious' it is in the recent form string.

The difference, as you'll have cottoned onto, is market rank. Industry market rank is much more significant than industry market price when translating to tote bets.

If you take just one thing from this article let it be that. It WILL pay you repeatedly.

So, if you have an opinion that the top two in the betting look a bit questionable, but you can't split the next three (or four), play the combinations... but to varying stakes.

A three horse combination is six bets, four horses will be twelve bets, and five horses will be twenty bets. It can take a bit of time to write the varying staked bets down, but your reward is a consistent (ish) return irrespective of which combination bags gold and silver. An example of how to stake this type of bet is below in good bet #2...

Good bet #2: The quite fancied outsider revisited

As touched on in bad bet #3, if you like an outsider, you need to have at least one other opinion to justify betting it in an exacta. For instance, if you think the favourite is weak, you can play your outsider with some of the other unfavoured runners, staggering your stakes higher to lower as you move away from the top end of the market. Let me show you what I mean.

Suppose you like a 12/1 shot in an eight horse race that bets as follows:

6/4 - 7/2 - 4/1 - 6/1 - 10/1 - 12/1 - 33/1 - 50/1

If your only view is that the 12/1 shot is of interest, then exacta is not the bet. Back it to win, or each way if you like.

However, if you think the 6/4 shot might be unsuited by today's going, or class, or pace set up, or whatever, you now have a chance to back up your primary opinion. In that case, you could for instance play the 12/1 with the 7/2 through to 10/1 chances, as follows:

£5 12/1 to beat 7/2
£4 12/1 to beat 4/1
£3 12/1 to beat 6/1
£1 12/1 to beat 10/1

That's a total stake of £13 optimized to smooth the return if you're right about the 12/1 winning. The key here is that your second opinion - that the favourite is dodgy - offers scope to improve the win price on your fancy. In other words, we're looking to get better than 12/1 for any combination of stake and non-favoured runner.

If fear drives your punting bus, and watching the 6/4 fav (or perhaps worse still, one of the rags) finish second to the 12/1 shot will hurt you, then make a small win bet on it as well.

Always remember that playing more than one combination dilutes your return. As in the bad bet #1 example, a 6 x £1 combination exacta paying £15 is not a 14/1 return, it's a 6/4 return. As obvious as that is, it is amazing how many punters delude themselves that they've made a big score, when all they've done is traded off risk against return, by having more coverage for smaller average odds.

Balance is required here, because the polar opposite - habitually taking a single horse to win over a single other horse for second - is a very narrow prayer mat punt too. Somewhere between death by a single bullet and death by a thousand cuts (or permutations) is a sustainable risk-reward equilibrium. Where that pivot point is will vary according to the race type and the nature and strength of your opinions.

Good bet #3: Staggering stakes to emphasize differing strengths of opinion

In good bet #2 above, the staking is staggered to smooth out the likely returns. That assumes that the player has no specific second opinion. In other words, (s)he feels the 12/1 is a fair bet, and the jolly looks opposable. But (s)he has no view on the remaining runners.

In this strategy, we assume that we have a view that a second runner has a better than implied chance. This might be in place of, or as well as, the view about the weak favourite.

Let's use the market from good bet #2, only this time we'll suppose that we think the 6/1 horse is probably the main danger. Although we don't want to lose the value of our main opinion, the 12/1 shot, we definitely want to emphasize our return if the 6/1 runs second. Our staggered stake might now look more like this:

£4 12/1 to beat 7/2
£2.50 12/1 to beat 4/1
£6 12/1 to beat 6/1
£0.50 12/1 to beat 10/1

We've spent the same £13, but loaded up a bit more on 12/1 to beat 6/1. The flip side is that we'll take less of a return - probably something more in line with the equivalent return for simply backing the 12/1 shot to win - if 12/1 beats one of our other nominees. That being the case, a win bet on the 12/1 with small exacta on 12/1 to beat 6/1 is a highly viable alternative play.

In both #2 and this approach, I've not touched on the prospect of the 12/1 finishing second to one of the other selections. Players wishing to insure for this will double the number of permutations - in this case, from four to eight - and should again look to spread the same (or similar) outlay over the additional combinations.

Thus, in #2 above, we might have £2 on 12/1 to beat 7/2, and £3 on the reverse; £1.50 on 12/1 to beat 4/1, and £2.50 on the reverse; £1.25 on 12/1 to beat 6/1, and £1.75 on the reverse; and, 50p either way on 12/1 and 10/1 being first/second.

In #3 here, we'd look to play up the 12/1-6/1 and 6/1-12/1 combo's, whilst splitting the other stakes accordingly.

As you can see, it quickly becomes easy to spread one's opinions too thinly to justify the play... and that's a good thing, because it forces the bettor to have a second thought about whether or not exacta is the correct conduit for investment.

(Fairly) Good bet #4: 'Two against a few'

This wouldn't be the greatest betting strategy in the world, but it is one that recognises the human failing which is the urge to bet, and embraces it! It's what the excellent 'exotics' writer Steven Crist refers to as "Stupid Exacta Tricks", also known as fun or action bets.

In races where you have a bit of an opinion but nothing strong, and where you consequently want to 'limp in', Crist suggests taking a couple at big prices for which you can make a case, and playing them with two or three or four shorted priced runners, though leaving out the front rank in the market.

Obviously, if you fancy the head of the market, or you can't make any sort of case for the bigger priced nags, then it's pass o'clock. But if you can find a pair of piggie possibles, then a bet like this is a reasonable way to engage the action:

A, B with A, B, C, D, E, F = 10 bets

A, B, C, D, E, F with A, B = 10 bets

These are ten bets each, not twelve, by the way, because A cannot be first and second, and neither can B. Should A beat B, or vice versa, the combination appears on both tickets, making for the happiness of a doubly staked winner.

 

Recommended Reading

Steven Crist's book, Exotic Betting, is about the best on the subject. Whilst it relates to US racing in its examples, the approaches and staking advice are generic, and will help any tote punter improve their seasonal return.

Smarter Bets - The Exacta Way: A Simple Process to Winning on Horse Racing is a newer book, written by Keith Hoffman. It's another American text, available from Amazon UK and, as the name suggests, it focuses specifically on the exacta wager.

Pool Betting: Placepot / Jackpot / Win6 Techniques

/in /by
Welcome to Oc-tote-ber!

Welcome to Oc-tote-ber!

In the first part of an Oc-TOTE-ber series of articles on tote betting, I'm going to look at multi-race tactics. This post is specifically focused on selection methods, whereas part 2 - which will follow tomorrow - will look into optimal staking strategies. Both hemispheres will improve your ability to navigate the choppy waters of a competitive race card and identify value plays in their midst.

Here are my top eight tips for making placepot selections:

1 Make sure you have time for this

The thing about the placepot, or the Pick 3, or the jackpot, or the Pick 6, is that it involves a number of races. Three in the Pick 3, four in the Irish version of the jackpot, six in lots of other bets. The implication is that it also involves a significant amount of study time to make an informed bet.

The implication is real. It does take time.

If you're in a rush, you'll slip into lazy habits, like looking at the recent form string to the left of the horse's name; or checking for top trainers and/or jockeys; or using the odds forecast to choose your selections.

That is abdicating responsibility, and it puts daylight between your form study ability and your chance of making a successful multi-race wager. Don't do this, unless you know that you're essentially having an 'action' bet, and you're entirely comfortable with that.

If you have very good tools - like the Pace Analysis, Full Form Filters and Instant Expert in Geegeez Gold - then you can get away with around ten minutes a race. If you don't, it's probably more like half an hour per race. Make time, and subscribe to good tools.

-

2 Ignore the recent form string

As I've said above, using the recent form string next to a horse's name is lazy. Not only that, it is the same lazy tactic used by the vast majority of multi-race (i.e. placepot, Pick 6, and so on) punters. If you do the same as them, you're more than likely to end up on the same horses as them. If you're on the same horses as them, one of two things will happen:

i) You'll all be right and the dividend will pay next to nothing; or

ii) You'll all be wrong, and someone who took a bit more time will scoop up all your collective cash

Either way, there is little or no value in this approach.

Now, let's be clear on something here. I'm NOT saying that you won't end up on the most logical horse from the form strings. Not at all. In fact, quite often you will. But you'll arrive at that destination via the form book, and having assured yourself that the pick is a genuine contender whose recent form was achieved under similar conditions and who has no obvious barriers to progressing again.

-

3 Look for the fancied P00/ horse

Fancied P00/ horse? Eh? Let me explain. The market is the best guide to the likely outcome of a race, of that there is no doubt. But, luckily, it is far from infallible.

Some of the best plays in multi-race tickets are the fancied nags with no form. Perhaps they're coming back after a long break. Maybe they've got the 'duck egg bracelet' of 000-000. Or perhaps they have more letters than numbers in the string, like PFFU20.

Often, these horses are no-hopers whose form string is a perfectly fair reflection of their ability and chance. But sometimes, it is not. Here's an example from yesterday at Navan. In the last leg of the placepot, a horse called Madeira Classic was running for the first time in 701 days. It had form of 005/. And yet it was a well backed 4/1 second favourite. This horse demanded closer scrutiny. Here's what I discovered when I 'lifted up the bonnet':

Madeira Classic was a stone better off than her previous form...

Madeira Classic was a stone better off than her previous form...

Madeira Classic last ran on the flat three years ago, in September 2011. That day he ran in the Curragh Amateur Derby off a mark of 70. And yet here he was with a rating of just 55, having taking significant and sustained market support, for a trainer (Christy Roche) known to be able to ready one for a gamble.

This horse was largely overlooked by the placepotting public, as the pool shows going into the last leg:

Just 7.5% of the remaining tickets were on the second favourite!

Just 7.5% of the remaining tickets were on the second favourite!

Just 7.5% of the remaining tickets were on the second favourite! As it happened, my A tickets had him, along with #8, and Madeira Classic failed by only a neck to wear down Rocky Bleier, also well gambled (20/1 into 9/1), at the line.

In what was an unremarkable sequence of results - the other five favourites, two of them odds on, all placed - the placepot paid €69.30 to a €1 stake. My €46 investment returned €242.55. For five favourites and a second favourite.

Easy pickings for easy picking!

Easy pickings for easy picking!

That's the full set of tickets there, including the losers which formed part of the perm. In tomorrow's post, I'll explain more about how I structure my bets.

Onwards...

-

4 Have an opinion!

I'm often guilty of this myself. I'll decide I want to do a placepot today. That decision is made completely ignorant of whether the conditions suit such a bet. In other words, without an opinion, I'm wading in. Careless. Reckless, sometimes.

So what constitutes an opinion? Various things can help make the decision to bet, such as:

i) A good looking rollover or pool guarantee

I'm usually happy to 'force' an opinion when there's OPM (other people's money) making up my potential return. If a bet was not won on its most recent run - for example, this afternoon's Pick 6 at Tramore has a rollover of €42,766 having not been won for a few days (including when I and a couple of other geegeez readers had a crack on Tuesday) - then other people's losses (including ours in this case) are in the pot to be claimed by today's potential winners.

Obviously, if it looks impossible or you have a short bankroll it probably still doesn't make sense to play. But the odds tilt in your favour with every penny or cent of other people's cash propping up the pool.

ii) You have a strong counter-market view in at least one race

Maybe it's a dodgy jumper in a steeplechase. Maybe you feel the favourite won't act on the ground; or the step up in class pitches him against seasoned and proven animals at the new level. Whatever it is, if you have at least one solid view that swims against the market tide, you'll be disproportionately rewarded if you're correct.

Obviously, there's still the chance that the market leader will oblige. And, worse still, in placepot bets there is the constant spectre of being right, only to see the outclassed dodgy jumper that didn't go on the ground sneak the last place in a photo from a 33/1 shot. Trust me, it happens. Often. Such is the 'potter's luck.

iii) 'Chalky' plays

In America, when a race looks likely to be dominated by the top of the market, it is referred to as 'chalky' (a phrase whose etymology likely harks back to the days of bookies' boards being chalk boards).

Sometimes, like that Navan placepot yesterday for instance, it looks like the favourites will all - or almost all - run solid races. In those cases, if correct, it is possible to chart a very narrow course through the sequence, and stake higher than normal.

Using the Navan example yesterday, you can see that the €1.50 perm was a 1 x 3 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 2 perm. In other words, six lines (€9). The other winning line was a €1 1 x 4 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 2 perm, for eight lines (€8).

Navan yesterday looked chalky. And it was chalky. For it to pay €69.30 was a gift, constructed from a single interesting nag in the last race, Madeira Classic.

*

The key to making any bet is, as Michael Pizzola, a smart American punter, likes to say, "Let the bet make you". In other words, if you see an angle, play it. If you don't, don't.

-

5 Back your opinion!

Once you have a view, it is important to have the courage of that conviction. The curse of the multi-race perm bet is fear of failure, whose symptoms are flabby perms, and either over-staking or diluted staking.

You have to be prepared to lose if you're wrong. After all, isn't that the fundamental premise of striking a wager?

So if you fancy the long absent 8/1 chance who was formerly useful and looks favoured by conditions, back your judgement. If it places, and the favourite doesn't, whoop. If it places and the favourite places too, unlucky. If it doesn't place, and the favourite does, no drama - after all, that hardly helps the dividend.

Also, it's no use having a view almost for the sake of it. In other words, if you think the favourite has a very strong chance of making the frame, but you consider the long absent 8/1 shot to have a bit of a squeak if x and y and z happen, play the favourite. Or maybe play them both (though not equally staked, more on this tomorrow).

If the key to making a multi-race bet is to "let the bet make you", then the key to making it pay is not to ignore or dilute your opinions to meaninglessness.

-

6 'One Brave Race'

I have the notion of 'One Brave Race' when making multi-race wagers. That is, somewhere in the sequence, I have to hang my hat on some sort of banker play. In a placepot, that will almost always be a single horse carrying my wagering hopes through at least one leg. I may, as in the example in 4 above, take multiple bankers, which affords more aggressive staking, or perming elsewhere (or both).

But a pre-defined 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 64 bets staking strategy is, frankly, destined to get what it deserves. That is a bookmaker's bet, plain and simple. It denies any prospect of having an imbalance of opinion through six different punting puzzles which is, naturally, faintly preposterous. If you bet placepots like this, please, stop doing it! 😉

A brave race might mean taking two selections on A in a big field, with no B or C plays (more on this tomorrow). It might mean singling (i.e. taking one horse) an odds on shot. Not that brave, granted, but it at least slims down the total permutation.

Remember, every horse at or very near to the top of the market that you can successfully include or exclude reduces your stake and increases the prospective dividend. When I find it hard to isolate a single brave race - usually because of a fiendish hyper-competitive card with a big pool - I will arbitrarily go short on leg one.

Some people like to have a bet running for as long as possible, for the enjoyment of it. And that's fair enough. For me, I'd rather take an early bath than go out in leg six of a whopper. Different strokes for different folks.

Luckily, there are ways to mitigate one's bravery, because we can...

-

7 Insure a position

Nobody ever said that a multi-race bet has to be made in isolation. If there's an odds on shot in leg one of the placepot, and it looks solid, single it and lay it for a place on Betfair. That's a very cheap way of covering your stake. If the horse places, your bet has cost slightly more. If the horse fails to place, you had a free go into the trappier part of the sequence, and claimed a refund.

If you're still rolling in the last, you can lay your shortest option for a place to return either some or all of your initial outlay, depending on how the dividend is shaping up and how confident you are in your remaining picks. Or you can calculate the smallest winning (for you) dividend, and 'green up'.

And, in short final leg placepot fields, how about taking the uncovered runners in exactas? For instance, let's say we have a five runner race with the first two in the market covered. If the dividend is looking decent, perm the other trio in exacta bets. As with everything, don't do a simple 'box' (i.e. all ways exacta), but rather place slightly more on the better fancied horses to beat the 'rags', and less on the 'rags' to beat the shorter-priced nags.

Note, in each of these cases, it is super-important to check the non-runner situation. If an eight runner race drops to seven runners, you'll get two places in the placepot but still be laying three places on Betfair. Be careful!

-

8 Have fun!

I unapologetically bang on about this all the time. I don't care if you're a seasoned pro punter who won't eat if you don't find enough winners (how sad, actually), or a 10p patent player. If it's not fun, there's no point: it's just a job, and a dull unrewarding job at that. A form of prostitution, no less.

No, betting is about having fun. Which is not to say it should be about losing. Those who believe that winning and enjoyment are mutually exclusive in horse racing betting really are hopeless cases, clinging on to the badge of 'pro punter' as if their lives depend on it. They don't. If it's that close to the wire, get a proper job and do us all a favour.

Moaning and groaning about 'not getting on'? Play tote pools. You can always get on, and there's always a pool big enough to accommodate your stake. Or set up a network of people to place bets for you. But either way, bore off about accounts being closed. It happens. Move on.

So yes, rant out of the way, let's have some fun! After all, what brings greater joy than a relatively small stake bet, loaded with opinions, vindicated both in the results and in the returns? That is truly the utopia of horse racing wagering. And, for me at least, it always will be. 😀

*

Below you'll find part two in this Oc-TOTE-ber series, looking at optimally staking multi-race bets like the placepot and jackpot. So do look out for that. In the meantime, there's a tasty rollover at Tramore this afternoon with my name on it... 😉

Matt

p.s. if you've not signed up with Tote Ireland yet, use code geegeez1 and get a bunch of goodness, as outlined here: http://www.geegeez.co.uk/tote-ireland-review/

In fact, if you open an account in Oc-TOTE-ber using that code, and bet €25 during the month (up to 9th November)... or if you're an existing Tote Ireland geegeez customer and bet €25 into the pool during the month, you'll be eligible for a share of a €200 syndicate bet. So get registered, get playing, and remember to use the code geegeez1 when you sign up.

***

Welcome to Oc-tote-ber!

Welcome to Oc-tote-ber!

In yesterday's first part of this Tote Tactics series, I showed you a number of ways to make better selections for tote pool bets.

But making good selections is only half the battle. The other part of the puzzle is staking your opinions optimally and, in this post, I want to delve more deeply into matters of staking.

There are two main staking methods - straight line, and full perm - and between them they probably account for 99%+ of all tote multi-race bets. But I'd estimate that they only account for around 75% of all tote multi-race stakes. Let's first look at what those staking methods are, and why they're almost always sub-optimal. And then we'll consider why they don't account for a commensurate amount of all stakes, and which 'smart money' approach does.

Straight Line

As the name suggests, this is the no nonsense one-selection-in-each-race-and-devil-take-the-hindmost approach. In a six leg bet, it has the following shape:

1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 bet

It lacks finesse, it lacks coverage, and it normally requires the bettor to get lucky. As a route to profit, it's weaker than most. As a harmless fun or action ticket, why not?

The reality is that in any sequence of three, four, six races, most players will have stronger views about the chances of horses in some legs than in others. Staking singly through the card offers minimal coverage for those weaker opinions. Still, it can be a bit of fun, and the bankroll remains intact if/when the wager bows out.

Full Perm

Keegan and Breitner: full perms

Keegan and Breitner: full perms

No, not Kevin Keegan's barnet of choice. Rather, a full perm is selecting multiple horses in one or more legs in the sequence, and staking every pick equally. For instance:

1 x 3 x 2 x 2 x 4 x 2 = 96 bets

We have a lot more coverage here, with each of the last five races offering at least two chances to move forward. In fact, this example contains 14 different horses. So far so good. So what's the problem?

It is simply that staking your bet this way assumes you have a similarly strong view about the chance of every horse in every leg. That is very unlikely to be the case.

Look at leg five, for example. Here, in this theoretical staking plan, we have four horses running for us. Let us further suppose that they are the 3/1 favourite, the 4/1 second favourite, and two 6/1 chances. Whilst we might feel the 3/1 favourite is vulnerable but don't want to omit it, it is unlikely that we have a similarly strong (or weak) view on the other three nominations.

In actual fact, in this case, if the 3/1 fav was considered vulnerable, I'd be happy to either leave it off the ticket completely, or demote it to a lower status. More of that in a moment.

The issue with this staking approach is that we have gone from one bet in the Straight Line to 96 bets in this incarnation of the Full Perm. This will reward us if we have enough outsiders in the frame - and manage to get enough favourites out of the frame - but we stand a good chance of not returning our initial stake should we not 'luck in' with our less popular choices.

So what to do in order to have a wide (ish) sweep through the races but not slice and dice our stakes to meaninglessness? Introducing ABCX...

ABCX

In any sequence of races, as I've written, we will almost always have stronger feelings about some horses than others, and we will consider some outcomes more likely than others based on the odds. It makes no sense, then, to weight all of our selections equally given the unequal sentiment in which we hold them.

For example, we might put a Pick 3 (a US bet requiring the player to pick the winner of three races, bizarrely enough 😉 ) perm together as follows (horse numbers, and odds), ignoring the notion of 'one brave race' (which I discussed in yesterday's post) for the purposes of this scenario:

Leg 1 - 1 (3/1), 3 (8/1), 4 (6/5)

Leg 2 - 2 (2/5), 7 (4/1)

Leg 3 - 4 (2/1), 5 (7/2)

The purest form of permutation would be 3 x 2 x 2 = 12 bets. You would be forgiven for thinking, "Well, it's only twelve bets, at $5 a throw is $60". But if you have a winning ticket with 6/5, 2/5 and 2/1 on it, you'll do well to get your money back. And, according to the market, that's the most likely outcome.

[Note, it doesn't matter if we're talking dollars, pounds, euros, or roubles. It's about the number of units and the division of funds]

So how can we better utilize that $60 stake? By using a weighted perm structure, of course. The one I favour, though by no means the only one, is ABCX. Essentially, we separate all of the horses in our sequence of races into:

A - main fancies, strong chance
B - fair chance, quite like
C - dark horses, value at the price
X - not interested

Let's apply that rationale to our initial bet, noting that all horses not selected have been discarded as 'X'

Leg 1 - 1 (3/1 B), 3 (8/1 C), 4 (6/5 A)

Leg 2 - 2 (2/5 A), 7 (4/1 B)

Leg 3 - 4 (2/1 A), 5 (7/2 A)

Leg 1 has one each of A, B and C; Leg 2 has an A and a B; and Leg 3 has two A's.

When using ABCX, we are saying that some combinations of outcomes are more likely than others. Specifically, it is most likely that we will win with our A selections; it is next most likely that we will win with two A choices and a B; and it is least likely that we will win with either an A and two B's, or two A's and a C.

Importantly, we are saying that if we are sufficiently wrong in our weighting analysis that the result comes back with an A, a B and a C, we have to accept that we lose, despite selecting those horses in our initial wide sweep. This can be a difficult outcome to accept, especially for newcomers, but it is crucial to prevent players from habitually over-staking: throwing cash at the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

Remember, if we haven't got at least one strong opinion, we shouldn't be playing. So, if we snake our way out of a winner by optimizing our staking, we wipe our mouth and move on.

Let's now look at how the original $60 bet might look using the above ABCX ticket distribution.

A much better 'weighted' spread of funds

A much better 'weighted' spread of funds

As you can see, we've spent the same $60 across five tickets.

Ticket #1 has a unit stake of $12 per line, and includes all of the A selections.
Tickets #2 and #3 have a unit stake of $6 each per line, and include two A's and one B each.
Ticket #4 has a $3 unit stake, and includes the C pick from race 1, with the A's in races 2 and 3
Ticket #5 has a $3 unit stake, and includes the B picks from both races 1 and 2 with the A's in race 3

Now, we have an optimal combination of likelihood of success and multiples of the dividend. In other words, if the most likely horses win, we'll have more units of a skinnier divvy, and if some of the less likely horses win we'll have less units of a bigger payoff.

If that sounds complicated, well, it is to a degree. But the good news is, as you might have guessed from the image above, there's a tool to help you with this. Based on American multi-race guru Steven Crist's ticket builder tool, I had my own geegeez variant built.

That tool can be found here:

Geegeez Multi-Race Ticket Builder

And instructions on how to use it (it's pretty simple) can be found here:

How to use the Geegeez Multi-Race Ticket Builder

Although perhaps 1% of UK-based multi-race bettors use a weighted staking method, that tiny minority probably accounts for a quarter of the total pool size in some multi-race win or place pools. That 'smart money' approach is where players of all bankroll should be aiming, effectively staking to ensure an optimal return when successful, almost regardless of the dividend.

****

In further episodes of this Oc-TOTE-ber Tote Tactics series, I'll be looking at Exacta and Trifecta betting: bets known collectively as intra-race multi's. Keep an eye out for those.

In the meantime, Tote Ireland is offering a piece of a €200 syndicate bet for any geegeez player to stake €25 between now and the end of October. You can bet into UK as well as Irish tote pools with them, and they have a range of other specials, some of which are listed here.

New Tote Ireland players will be eligible for up to €50 in free bets as well as the slice of the €200 syndicate bet if using the exclusive promo code geegeez1 when registering.

Good luck!

Matt

How To Use The New Speed Ratings

/in /by

How To Use The New Speed Ratings

Unless you've had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, you'll have heard me talking about the new speed ratings we've added to the Geegeez Gold package.

How to use speed ratings

How to use speed ratings

They sit right within the card itself - and we're working on adding them to the pace tab too, for those who like to combine pace and speed - and are already proving to be a huge hit.

But some people have questions about the new numbers, the main one being "How do use the speed ratings?".

It's a good question, and not a simple one to answer, insofar as there is no hard and fast response. Rather, there are lots of ways to incorporate speed ratings into your existing methods, or purely as a standalone betting tool. In the video below, I've outlined a few, using the first few races from Monday 1st September. In it, you'll see examples of:

  • Backing the top-rated
  • Backing the top-rated when clear
  • Backing a horse at a value price in the top two or three ratings
  • Combining multiple horses when they're clear of the rest
  • Using ratings in conjunction with pace profiles
  • Using ratings in conjunction with Instant Expert (form profiles)

[CLICK THE BOX BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE VIDEO TO DISPLAY IT FULL SCREEN]

**

Matt

p.s. if you have an approach based on using the speed ratings in conjunction with aspects of the racecards, do leave a comment and tell us. Sharing is caring. 😉

Value Value VALUE

/in /by
Where to find value...

Where to find value...

In the good old days, punters used to talk about 'the three D's'. These were discipline, discipline and discipline. Many of you - like me - will relate to that readily enough, as selectivity is generally the key to success in betting.

But in the modern day betting supermarket, where the exact same product (i.e. a horse in a race, or a team in a match) is offered at often curiously differing prices, depending on the brand (i.e. the bookmaker), the three V's - value, value and value - might be the new maxim for successful betting.

Now, obviously, discipline is still as relevant as it ever was. It will always be a fundamental cornerstone that sets apart those who win from those who don't. But life has become a lot easier with the advent of a) online bookmaker offers, and b) comparison portals. In a second we can see which bookmaker has the best offer on our fancy.

Better yet, if the bookie offers Best Odds Guaranteed, we have the chance of a price drift topping up our odds still further.

What this ultimately means is that you could be, for instance, in the beer aisle, looking at twelve cases of Old Gobhoblin Pale Fizzer. Each case is the same, and seven of them have the same price on them, £9.99. But the other five are different. Two say £10.50, two say £9.49, and the other one says £7.99. You really like Old Gobhoblin Pale Fizzer. Which one do you pick up?

It's a no brainer that you'd pick up the cheapest, right? I mean, that's a 20% difference in price in your favour and, if you drink a case of Pale Fizzer a day, you'll have almost enough money saved to pay for the liver transplant 😉

But here's where it gets better. When you get to the checkout, the cashier says, "Oh, this is on special offer this week. It's only £6.99". Bingo, you've saved another 10%.

This is EXACTLY how shopping around for the best odds, and using Best Odds Guaranteed, works. We're looking for the best bargain every time.

How many of us would knowingly pay 20% more for our shopping than we needed to? Not many, of course. And yet, there are still lots and lots and lots of punters who think it doesn't matter about getting the best price; that a point here or there makes no difference.

It's just weird. I mean, the survey we recently did revealed that most people who visit geegeez bet every day. And yet 42% have five or less chances to get a bargain - in other words, five or less accounts.

Let me just quickly say that if you mainly bet for fun/entertainment/to solve the puzzle, then it maybe doesn't matter. But to anyone who said they bet to win money, and they have just a few accounts, you are making it extremely difficult for yourselves.

OK, sermon over!

**

Things you need to know today then...

1. Racebets is the latest bookmaker to offer Best Odds Guaranteed. They are a growing brand in UK and appear in most odds comparison charts these days. They have a dizzying array of money back concessions, and offer a £50 deposit match for new customers. If you use BOG bookies, add this to your set.

2. How about a completely risk free no catch bet? Betbright are offering new customers a £30 no lose bet on the World Cup semi-finals. Here's how it works: you make a bet. If it wins, you get paid out. If it loses, you get your money back. You follow? You must use this link to qualify, as it has a special tracking code associated with it.

3. If you already have a Betbright account, note that they'll be refunding correct score and scorecast bets if a semi-final match ends 0-0. Given that the Dutch and the Argentinians have had real trouble scoring in the knockout phases, and that Brazil could be toothless without Neymar, and that Germany have had two 1-0's in their last three games, this looks a very good safety net if that's your sort of wager.

**

Let's talk about another manifestation of value. Tote pools. Not just any old tote pool. Some of them are rancid pools. But some are not. Those with guaranteed pool sizes where the amount of player cash falls short of the guarantee are value. Rollovers are value. Why? Because in both cases, someone else is putting money in the pot for you to potentially take out.

I've had enormous success with Colossus Bets during this World Cup, netting three Pick 4's worth over £3,700. Each of them to a 20p winning stake (though my total bet stake was significantly higher). Colossus is a pool bet on correct scores, and every pool is guaranteed, with many of them not reaching the guarantee figure from player funds. Put another way, the pools are being subsidised.

After my own success (£1,059 for a £36 bet), I formed a little syndicate - seven readers and I each put in £50, to make a pot of £400. On our first attempt, we scooped just over £1,500 (£1,570); and on our second attempt we scooped just under £1,500 (£1,485).

Each of these pools was attractive to me/the syndicate because it had either a rollover or a guaranteed minimum fund that I didn't believe would be matched. That is to say that each time I was helping myself to a spot of someone else's cash. Nice, right?

The last Colossus Bets Pick 4 of the World Cup starts with the first semi-final tonight, and then takes in semi-final 2, the 3rd/4th place match, and the final. Obviously, it involves some conjecture into which teams will make the final, but that's the same for everyone and adds spice to the mix!

Our syndicate has dissolved now, and I'll be having a solo crack at the £50,000 guaranteed pool. At the time of writing, there's just £3,880 in the pool, meaning there is a strong likelihood of the pot being subsidised by Colossus. Which means, of course, that there's free money up for grabs, if we're smart/lucky enough to nail a winning quartet of correct scores.

You can read my review of ColossusBets here. And if you've had a crack at these pools already, leave a comment and let people know what you thought, and how you got on.

**

Value, Value, VALUE. How good a value proposition is free? Answer, varying degrees of good.

Most free stuff is free for a reason. It will actually cost you time (and possibly money) to figure out it's no good.

Other free stuff is free for another reason: it showcases the value of a product or service and acts as a potential incentive for users to 'trade up'. It's great content from which the user can benefit, and there's no hard feelings if that user doesn't want to move to a premium level of service.

Welcome to Double Dutch, the daily free tip service on geegeez. It's a service that currently shows a profit of 68.08 points, from just 260 betting days. We bet two points a day, split across two horses in two races - a 2 x 2 double. And the return on stakes is over 13%, which is way better than a majority of premium services.

We love - perhaps I should say, I love - this service, and we're very proud to offer it. But for some reason it only gets around 200 views a day. Again, weird. Anyway, today's selections can be found in various ways:

i. Go to Horse Racing Tips in the top menu
ii. Click the post on the left hand side of the home page, called 'Double Dutch, 8th July 2014'
iii. Click here

And, if you like Double Dutch, then perhaps you'd like to know about our premium level tipping service, Stat of the Day. This is a one a day service, Monday to Saturday, which has been running since November 2011. In that time, it's accumulated £4,194.20 to £20 level stakes (as at end June; July is well in profit too).

Those aren't mythical 'past performance' figures, they're real time figures from a live service. We get amazing feedback on this service, and I really should put a file together because there must be over 200 - maybe more than that - incredible comments. Here are a couple from the last few days:

PauljD said:

Having been out all day this was a “fire and forget” bet so a very pleasant surprise when I got to the results! Very nice drift as well. I note that the DD came in too although I missed that one, got yesterday’s though. Very well done and a big thank you for this week’s tips.

Doshtosh said:

On days like this, and there are so many, I want to write in to thank you, Chris and Matt, for a service, the likes of which I have never seen before, and if I wasn’t involved, thank God I am, I wouldn’t have believed existed. It’s not just the winners and profit, though they are no 1 but so much more on the web site and notifications to our emails. Thanks, so very much and have a great weekend. I hope we meet, someday, even if there will be sore heads the following day…..at my expense, it would be a pleasure.

RonCombo said:

What a brilliant day on Saturday Chris. SoTD with a super drift and DD, all coming in as winners. Then I had De Rigeur (14s) from the Shortlist and Salvatore Fury (9/2) and Sandra’s Diamond (13/2), both from the Tracker system which I bought into. Thank you (yet again) GeeGeez!

And fatboyjim said:

Incredible stuff once again. Got to be the best value out there, I have finally learned how to use the race cards to suit my own style of punting and had some big winners over the weekend.

If anyone remembers the SotD highlighted the Haggas/Hanagan a couple of weeks ago, well they certainly did the job yesterday. Also had Mister Wiseman today using the cards.

Diamond in the service though is the wonderful SotD, brilliant. I use 2% of rolling bank and I am in dreamland.

Those comments related to just one winner on one day. Stat of the Day has had 248 winners from 861 runners as at the end of June, a strike rate of 29% - favourites win at about 30%! - and for a return on investment of a mouth-watering pant-wetting account-threatening 24%.

All from one bet a day.

Best of all? This is just one part of the Geegeez Gold service. Worth way more than £24 a month on its own, it is supported by the racecards, form tools and reports that you will have heard me talk about previously.

Value. Value Value VALUE. It underscores everything we try to do here at geegeez, from offering a tip service to helping people understand the 'easy' ways to get the best chance of winning at betting.

You can try Gold for ten days for free (now that's value!). And if you like it, you can stay on board for 80p a day. You know what the guys above think about it, so perhaps it's time you gave it a whirl. What have you got to lose?

Here's the link if you want to join the hundreds of Gold subscribers whose betting has gone to another level.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the three Gold subscribers below found 33/1 winner Prince Tom yesterday using their Gold subscription. It was a fairly obvious selection for a number of reasons highlighted on Gold. But with form figures of /PB-5P the public totally ignored it. It paid 44.81 Betfair SP.

Comments and tweets yesterday about Geegeez Gold

Comments and tweets yesterday about Geegeez Gold

.

A couple of quite big sites have asked to trial Geegeez Gold, and the first of their reviews is due soon. This site is not known for effusive praise of products and services, and they never go overboard. In fact, subscribers pay specifically for their hard core unbiased reviews. Well, I've seen a draft copy of their Geegeez Gold review and... let's just say they like Gold. A lot!

Click here to take your ten day free trial of Geegeez Gold

Matt

p.s. I'll be back on Thursday with a preview of day one from Newmarket's excellent July Festival meeting.

p.p.s. Have you any thoughts on the above? Value? Colossus? Stat of the Day/Double Dutch? Geegeez Gold? Leave a comment to enlighten those who may not have seen what you've seen, or know what you know. (And thanks!)

Colossus Bets Review: Win £10,000,000

/in /by
Colossus Bets Review

Colossus Bets Review

ColossusBets Review: Win £10,000,000

A bet with a £10,000,000 jackpot is always going to capture the imagination. And I've spent the last couple of weeks playing around with the site that offers that bet, and plenty of other less headline-grabbing ones, ColossusBets.

Who are ColossusBets?

Colossus Bets are a fairly new company, who started trading last year. They offer players pool betting on football scores (mainly), with a chance to win as much as £10,000,000.

Their directors include a previous Betfair bigwig, and they are registered as a company in UK.

So far so good, but...

What is the Colossus, and how do I play?

The Colossus is the headline bet from Colossus Bets, and it involves players correctly predicting the outcomes of seven football matches. There are easier variants involve three, four, five or six matches, and all have pool guarantees, meaning you are certain to collect a set amount if you are the sole winner in a pool.

Players may choose as many scores for each game as they like, and there are three 'Any other' scores: a home win by four or more; an away win by four or more; and a draw of 2-2 or bigger.

Click here to learn more about Colossus Bets, and to sign up and play

Playing is easy - I've been getting very involved during the World Cup. You simply:

1. Choose your bet. Let's try a Pick 3 (three matches)

Colossus Bets review

Colossus Bets: how to play

2. Fill out your chosen scores, and choose a stake

How to play the Colossus Bets

How to play the Colossus Bets Pick 3

3. Manage your position (or not!)

There are lots of really cool things about Colossus, but the one I love the most is the 'cash out' function.

What this allows you to do is to 'sell' all or part of your ticket at various points before the final match is complete... as long as you still have a 'live' score.

Let me give you an example, based on a chronology of the above bet.

The first two games - Costa Rica vs England and Italy vs Uruguay - both kick off at 5pm GMT. Half time in both will be somewhere between 5.45pm and 6pm GMT. Then, the final game kicks off at 9pm GMT, with half time in that game at around 9.45pm GMT.

The first two games kick off. Let's suppose England score in the first half, and are leading 1-0 at the break (it is possible!). Let's further suppose that the Italy-Uruguay match is a tetchy chanceless affair with more kicking than goalmouth action, and it remains 0-0.

Half time in the early kick offs

At half-time in those games, we will receive a 'cash in' offer. The offer tells us how much we can sell our ticket for. In the above example, where our target scores are looking good, the offer would be reasonable, and might be £50 for our £16 stake.

When you consider that it's only half-time in two of the three matches, and we haven't yet predicted any of them correctly, that's quite cool.

But here's the really clever part. We don't have to sell all of our ticket. We can sell any 10% of it. So, in this example, we could sell 40% and get £20 for that. That would mean we had a profit of £4 on the bet and, more importantly, we have a free bet for 60% of our ticket on these good looking score lines.

Of course, we could take all of the offer there and then. Or we could do nothing and let it ride. Personally, I'd be letting this one ride. But let's suppose we sell 40% to cover our stakes; and let's move on an hour.

Full time in the early kick offs

It's the end of the two 5pm games, and England have played really well (let's hope so!) and won 2-0. Italy have chiselled out a 1-0 win as well. Our bet is looking good so far, with two correct scores in the bag, and coverage of five likely scores in the final match.

We get another 'cash in' offer from Colossus Bets. This time we can take £96 for the remaining 60% of our ticket. Let's suppose we check the team news in the Greece-Ivory Coast match and see that Ivory Coast's key defender is not playing.

At this point, we decide that it might be smart to take another £48 out for 30% of the remaining 60%. That gives us a return of £68 on a stake of £16, for a profit of £52... and we've still got 30% left to cheer.

The Greece vs Ivory Coast match kicks off...

Half time in the third match

Against the form in the group, Greece have played really well in the first half and have a 1-0 lead against a lethargic looking Ivory Coast, who are down to ten men. It's half time, and we receive a further 'cash in' offer. We have three possible scores still 'live': 1-0 Greece, 1-1, and AOD (Any Other Draw).

We really don't fancy the big draw, and it doesn't look as thought Ivory Coast are going to do much, based on their first half showing. So we look a bit precarious on our 1-0 score as, if anything, Greece look likely to score again.

The offer is just £6.40 for our last 30%.

We decide to let it ride as it's not a lot of money, and we've already cleared a good profit on the bet. For thirty minutes it looks like we'll get paid out. But, in the last quarter of an hour the ten men Ivorians tire, and Greece score two late goals to win 3-0.

We lose our remaining 30% of the ticket.

Click here to learn more about Colossus Bets, and to sign up and play

4. What actually just happened?!

Let's look at what happened here. We made a bet over three games, two of which ran simultaneously, and we had three opportunities to 'cash out' before the end of the bet (half time in the first pair of matches; full time in the first pair of matches; and half time in the later third match).

At half time in the early games, we 'covered our stake'. In other words, we sold a piece of our ticket to get a free bet on the rest.

At full time in the early games, we locked in a profit. We sold a further piece of our ticket to guarantee a nice bit of beer money.

At half time in the late game, we decided to let things run, and retained our last piece of the ticket. This gave us an interest in the rest of the match, and a chance to win a few quid more.

At full time in the late game, our correct scores were sunk, meaning we actually failed to correctly predict the results of the three games, and yet we still made a healthy profit! That's why I love this bet!! 😀

Let's talk about rollovers and guarantees

You will know from my recent review of the Irish tote that I love rollovers and pool guarantees.

To remind you, a rollover is when a previous bet has not been won, and the money wagered is 'rolled over' into a new betting opportunity. These happen often with Colossus Bets, and that means two things:

1. The chance of a 'scoop', i.e. being the only winner of a pool, and

2. Huge value in a pool that has a starting fund of £100,000+ before a new bet has been struck!

As I write, there is a £56,663 Pick 4 rollover starting at 5pm today, and I will definitely be involved.

All pools are guaranteed, the Pick 3 pools to £5,000, the Pick 4 pools to £30,000, and the Pick 6 to £1,000,000. Of course, the Colossus (a Pick 7) is guaranteed to pay £10,000,000 for anyone brave enough not to cash out until the death!

Those are all for £2 stakes, but you can bet 20p's for a chance to win a million as well.

Click here to learn more about Colossus Bets, and to sign up and play

But wait, there's more... Bonuses and Consolations

The big pools - the Pick 6 and Colossus - both have bonus and consolation prizes.

The consolation prize is a pool of £5,000 (Colossus) / £1,000 (Pick 6) which is shared amongst players who correctly predict the result (i.e. home win, draw, away win) in each of the six or seven games. And that's far easier than guessing seven correct scores, even if five grand is not ten million!

The bonus prize - which is a million quid in the Pick 6 and five mill in the Colossus - is paid to any player that correctly predicts the score of a further game. Wow.

Why I love Colossus Bets

Colossus was totally new to me about a month ago. But, since the World Cup started, I've been an avid fan, playing Pick 3 / 4 games each night. It's not easy to get three or four scores right - especially in what has been a high scoring tournament so far. But, because of the cash out options, I've been able to get my stakes back and still have free bets to cheer, and take profit from, in the remaining games.

I also love the proliferation of small stakes punters who have won big money at Colossus Bets, like this guy yesterday, who turned £1.50 into £7,500 by guessing the scores of three matches.

Fancy £7,500 for £1.50? Try Colossus Bets!

Fancy £7,500 for £1.50? Try Colossus Bets!

Get up to £100 Matched Bet when you sign up

On top of everything else, I almost forgot to mention the huge welcome offer from ColossusBets. They will match the amount you deposit and wager during the first three days of your new account. So, if you deposit and bet £20, they will give you another £20 to bet with. Deposit and wager £5, they'll give you £5 free to bet. And if, like me, you like bigger perms and deposit/bet £100 or more, you'll get another £100 to bet with, gratis.

Give it a try... and Good Luck!

 Click here to learn more about Colossus Bets, and to sign up and play

Are racing’s viewing figures in terminal decline?

/in /by
The new C4 Racing line up

The new C4 Racing line up

Last weekend saw the third and fourth Classics of the British flat season run at Epsom, with both the Oaks and Derby winners making headlines with their successes. But the TV audience was lower - strikingly lower - than for the same pair of races last year, and just half of the figures of a few years ago.

So what has happened to strangle the interest of the British watching public to such a degree and, more materially perhaps, what can be done to revive the dwindling audience?

A spot of context

Let's start with a bit of historical context. The year is 2008, and New Approach wins the Derby for Jim Bolger and 'Mrs Sheikh Mohammed'. BBC TV reports viewing figures of three million, and a spokesperson is quoted as saying, "We are very pleased the figures remained consistent on such a busy weekend of sport."

The figures were in line with the 2007 renewal, when Authorized gave Frankie Dettori his Derby win.

On the Friday of the 2008 Derby Festival, viewing figures for the Oaks and Coronation Cup (which has since moved to Saturday) were 900,000.

In the same year, Channel 4's coverage of the Gold Cup attracted two million viewers, and the BBC's coverage of the Grand National commanded a whopping 10.1 million peak viewers.

Six years have passed since those very strong viewing figures were recorded, and much has changed. The global economic crisis has struck and the ripple effect of its shock waves are still being felt in terms of disposable income and, therefore in available punting pounds.

Competition for that wagering pound is increasingly fierce, with everything from FOBT's in betting shops to virtual racing to saturation coverage of sport across the airwaves, both terrestrial and satellite. And, to that end, the transition from analogue to digital TV has expanded the number of viewing options on the average gogglebox.

In the microcosm of racing's TV coverage, two earthquakes have struck, and they too have generated significant aftershocks. First, BBC Sport limped in to the bidding process  to continue to host horse racing, essentially surrendering its right to cover Royal Ascot, the Derby, and other top meetings. Then, upon winning the bidding (phoney) war, Channel 4 announced dramatic changes both behind and in front of the cameras.

That was 2012, and C4 now has two Derby meetings under its belt, as well as continued coverage of the Cheltenham Festival.

At the time of the deal, Richard Fitzgerald, chief exec of Racecourse Media Group, the company that spearheaded C4's bid, was quoted as saying:

"This new deal will not only deliver increased revenues for British racing, but with all of our sport's crown jewels in its portfolio, Channel 4 offers a compelling vision to innovate the way racing is broadcast."

Now, two years on, it is right and proper that those splashing the cash, and expounding grand visions, are held to account against their prophetic (or not) sound bites.

The state of the racing broadcasting nation

As the ink dried on the contract, so the axe swung on the - granted, somewhat legacy - broadcast team which had been in situ on the Channel 4 sofas since day one of its racing coverage. Old school stalwarts such as John McCririck, Derek Thompson, and John Francome were mothballed in favour of fresher-faced frontmen and women. Nick Luck, Rishi Persad, Graham Cunningham, and notably Clare Balding were recruited, along with Mick Fitzgerald.

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating and, having dined on this menu for two years, the British viewing public has considered it less appetizing than its heartier predecessor. At least, that's what the bare figures imply.

Let's look at those figures.

The Derby of this week drew a peak audience of 1.55 million, and the Oaks coverage on Friday was shared with just 558,000 viewers. Those figures are awful. There really is no other way of putting it.

Whilst it's unfair to compare them with the BBC viewing figures of 2008, it's entirely reasonable to compare them directly with the Channel 4 viewing figures of a year ago. Then, the Derby was watched by a peak of nigh on two million, and the Oaks by pushing 800,000.

That represents a year on year drop of almost a quarter for the Derby, and even more than that for the Oaks.

Channel 4's head of sport, Jamie Aitchison, was quoted in The Guardian as saying:

“I’m pleased with the high-quality coverage from the Channel 4 Racing team over two glorious days at the Investec Derby Festival.

“Despite there being live sport across all four main terrestrial channels yesterday afternoon, Australia’s win in the Derby was watched by a bigger peak audience than the French Open Ladies’ Final, the Challenge Cup Rugby and the Formula 1 practice session.”

As head-burying ostriches go, Aitchison has found himself a pretty big sandpit in which to shield his eyes from the (mixed metaphorical) reality of a sinking ship. And, to some observers, it is a sign of the lack of alternative leadership at C4 that there has yet to be whispers of mutiny amongst the ailing crew.

Let's be clear: references to alternative sport don't really wash. Remember that quote from 2008?

"We are very pleased the figures remained consistent on such a busy weekend of sport."

The beeb was able to maintain its viewing figure in the face of sports broadcasting competition.

And, last year, on Derby Day - 1st June - competing sports on TV included French Open tennis, and British Lions vs Barbarians rugby. The fact that Aitchison references the practice session from a Grand Prix implies how far racing has fallen in the public affections. Or has it?

Channel 4's Cheltenham coverage recorded a viewing figure of 1.53 million for the 2014 Gold Cup, a race run on a Friday, as opposed to the Derby on a Saturday. This was actually up marginally on 2013.

And C4's Grand National coverage has plateaued the past two years at over eight million, an impressive figure when compared with Auntie's ten million, given the additional reach BBC1 has over C4 generally.

So what's the difference?

So far all I've achieved is to aggregate a whole bunch of numbers, and try to flag a couple of meaningful historical punctuation marks in racing broadcasting's current chapter.

It's high time we tried to pull all this together, and figure out what's working and what's not working.

Based on the empirical evidence, and on my own (admittedly somewhat myopic) inspection, here are some points to consider...

1. Racing gets its biggest audiences when it touts for them

The viewing figures for the Grand National and Cheltenham have very little to do with production values and the quality of the presenting team, despite what Aitchison would have us believe. Rather, they are a product of the amount of peripheral marketing that goes on around the main events.

The Grand National had a fantastic billboard campaign, some excellent TV ads, and plenty of cross-promotion on more mainstream shows, such as Alan Carr, Chatty Man.

Whatever racing's suits think, this is what works. It brings people to the sport who otherwise would not engage. Channel 4 - and racing as a whole - needs to do more of this. It's not a boy's club any more, it's an ecumenical church (small 'e', small 'c') where every man and woman can have an opinion and put their money where their tweet is.

After all, isn't that the society in which we currently reside? In the land of 'me, me, me', why isn't racing - and Channel 4 Racing - tapping in to that sentiment?

Broaden the appeal with cross-promotion, tout for opinions, and people will engage. It's the most basic marketing message of all time.

2. Shades of grey do not appeal beyond racing's own

The team of presenters on the Channel 4 roster currently almost all share a professionalism that was occasionally lacking in the pre-2012 squad. And, if you're a perfectionist or a racing form enthusiast, you probably value that. (I do). But let's face it, if you're that sort of person, you probably have at least one of the two satellite racing channels.

Channel 4's job, as I've alluded to in point 1 above, is to broaden the appeal of the sport. As the sole terrestrial broadcaster, they have an obligation to hold the torch for British racing.

The presenters have very little chance of broadening the appeal as things stand, in my opinion. They are too similar, too pedagogic, too... aloof, almost.

Here's how I'd shape a team if I was charged with such matters.

Anchor - Amiable, charismatic. The lead presenter needs to be able to take one long arm and embrace both the racing personalities at the heart of the sport, and an audience which drifts far beyond racing aficionados. The ideal for me is a person that might actually keep you watching even if you didn't care two hoots for horses.

Matt Chapman can overcook it on occasion (Frankel's Champions Day 2012, for instance). But there's little doubt he has a personality, a breadth of knowledge, and an easy way with all-comers that is both engaging and entertaining.

Racing broadcasting needs to entertain in the bits between the races, and it's kind of forgotten how to do that to some degree.

Foil - Quirky, occasionally insightful, occasionally irritating. Willie Carson had many detractors when paired with Clare Balding, but there's no doubt they had an on-screen chemistry which is missing from the sterile laboratory environment of the C4 broadcast bus.

They were an OB duo - outside broadcasters, in all weather. Balding has been isolated since her move to C4, and she doesn't operate nearly as well in the sole anchor role. I liked Willie Carson, though I sometimes had enough of him; and I respect Clare Balding, though I don't especially enjoy her presentation work these days.

I often had enough of Big Mac, but he represented a viewing demographic that is no longer represented, and has long since switched off, or over. The two goons who do the betting now are uninteresting, and at least one resource too many, in my view. But they are better than Wiltshire and Parrott who were on the other side, who were in turn far better as bookies and snooker players.

Face facts: the two satellite channels cover betting with a bloke (or lass) in a booth, and a graphic on the screen. It just doesn't need any more than that.

Ex-Pro - It is always insightful to get a view from someone who has done things you never will. I've read form; I've written about racing; I've made bets. But I've never ridden or trained a horse. John Francome has. And he was extremely adept at articulating those ethereal imponderables that go into ensuring a horse is right for the job on the day.

Mick Fitzgerald is, I'm afraid, a pale shadow of Francome, and has none of his wit or charisma. Good horseman though he was, he's not an especially good presenter, and he's been at it a fair few years now.

There are any amount of ex-pro's looking for work. Surely somewhere in their midst is a diamond in the rough. And that's exactly what's needed for this role, which is why Francome excelled in it. His departure - out of loyalty to the former production team - was a shame at the time, and he has been a big miss pretty much ever since.

Punter - Racing is about punting for most people. In my opinion, C4 has done well to understand that and to bring in the likes of Paul Kealy and Tom Segal for The Morning Line. Both are excellent judges and, while the smoke blown up them from Lucky and co is a little misplaced, they are definitely 'value add' for me on the early shift.

Form Boffin - A form boffin, who also likes to bet and doesn't mind sharing as much, is a staple. C4 has two, which is one too many... unless they approach the puzzle from different angles. They don't. Both Jim McGrath and Graham Cunningham are fine judges, and extremely professional presenters. But they are 99.9999% from the same gene pool, and entirely interchangeable to my eye, and ear.

Personally, I'd marginally prefer Cunningham, but there's very little in it, as I've alluded.

3. Let's re-format this disk...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. We now know that Janus Jamie Aitchison will be crowing in April after the Grand National figures; and crying in June at the Epsom / Royal Ascot numbers.

He, his programmes, and his presenters, are currently products of their environment: so much driftwood at the whim of the wider marketing push. That they are losing their core audience is extremely disconcerting, though, and something that requires a change of format, regardless of the pointless positing about professionalism from Aitchison.

What I'd really like to see is someone - and some time - dedicated to the shape of the race: what it normally takes to win a race like this; how the pace shapes up; the liveliest outsiders (that could turn out to be heroes or, perfectly possibly, zeroes).

Perhaps some - most, in fact - of that could be visualized. We live in a world of infographics, tweets, and status updates. Bite size chunks of data: information plankton for us hungry knowledge-gathering whales.

Attention spans are shortening as a consequence. "Just tell me what's going to win". That's the cowards' way out. The single smartest move I ever made (and, highly likely, ever will make) at geegeez was to 'visualize' races with the Race Analysis Reports.

Can you colour de-code this?!

Can you colour de-code this?!

In that one view, anyone - and I mean anyone, with the possible exception of those who are both short-sighted and colour blind, or just blind (apologies) - can see in an instant which horses are best suited to today's race conditions.

It's a blunt instrument. There's no finesse to it, no inference about horses ahead of the handicapper, whatever. But it's remarkably effective, and can be interpreted in different ways to suit different punters' tastes. And can be colour-decoded by anyone.

Bloke off the street? Instant awareness. He could tell you that Horse A has placed in three of his six runs on this ground, but has a doubt about the distance. And so on. That's real power to the peripheral punters' elbow.

It is e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y simple. And it works. It is a form tool for our time. And it is exactly the sort of thing that takes the dark art of form reading out of the hands of one or two judges and shares the wealth, to some degree at least, with every(wo)man.

That, for me, is the job of the production team at C4. It's time for them to break down the barriers between a newbie and the payout window; to expand the knowledge horizons of the transient viewer; to convert that viewing transience into a more committed tuner-in.

It can be done. It just takes a shift of focus. And a wider marketing push.

4. The Morning Line. 9 o'clock.

Finally, move The Morning Line back to a more sociable hour. I have daddy duties on Saturday morning. I used to have hangovers on Saturday morning. 8am is the graveyard shift, and Channel 4 know it. If Aitchison has any clout, he'd be on to the guv'nors to move that back an hour.

**

So that's what I think, but what do you reckon? What do you think works, and doesn't work with Channel 4 currently? Who do you like to see/listen to? And who not so much? What would you like to see added to the shows to make them more appealing?

Chasing Value Race Analysis – Saturday 31 May 2014

/in /by
A Fair Crack of the Whip?

Weekend Selections

My name is Mike Ashurst, and my speciality is finding value in the big Saturday afternoon handicaps for all codes of racing. Each Friday afternoon I will focus on some of the most valuable and/or competitive races of the weekend and try to find some early value.  I will offer my opinion on the value or otherwise at the top of the market and highlight a few horses that I think might represent some decent early opportunities.

Newmarket 15:00 Class 2 Handicap 6f (Soft)

The current joint favourite Goldream ran a cracker last time on good to firm ground and has obvious claims based on that. The opening price of around 11/2 looks about right but there is enough doubt about him reproducing that form on soft ground for me to look elsewhere. The other jolly Don’t Bother Me was also of interest to me dropping down in trip, however again there is enough doubt for me to take this one also at 11/2.  Hoodna is one that interests me.  He is unexposed and needs to prove himself in first time hood and on this surface, but there is enough juice in the opening price of 12/1 to take a chance with him. The other one I like is Picture Dealer, who was fairly progressive last year and ran a decent comeback race on soft ground so looks reasonable value at an opening price of 14/1.

Newmarket 15:35 Class 2 Handicap 1m4f (Soft)

If Mighty Yar acts on the ground and continues his progress then he could well be the one to beat, and there is a slither of value in the opening price of 7/2. Fellow jolly Rye House also has a good chance on his comeback run, however he needs to improve again over a longer trip and 7/2 looks a little too short for me. Plutocracy was progressive last year and I wouldn’t put anyone off backing this one, however with question marks against fitness and ground I’ll watch him on this occasion. Looking further down the market, conditions look fine for Macbeth if he is ready to go first time and I’m happy to take a chance at 25/1.

York 14:20 Class 1 Listed 1m6f (Good to soft)

The top 2 in the betting, First Mohican and Rawaki, both hold their chances if building on recent efforts, but with proven course form I prefer Clever Cookie at 6/1 to improve again at the longer trip. Shwaiman has shown enough in his two races this year to suggest that he has improved as a 4 year old, so at 14/1 represents decent value. Party Line acts with cut and if he comes on for his comeback run is on a fair mark and I’ll be playing her each way at 33/1.

York 14:50 Class 2 Handicap 5f (Good to soft)

Alben Star is in great heart at the moment, but with his best form on AW surfaces or ground quicker than he is likely to get here, I’ll swerve him as favourite.  Monsieur Joe on the other hand ran his best race for some time when beating several of these over course and distance last time, if he can continue in that vein of form then a five pound rise might not be enough to stop him at a decent price of 11/1. Secret Witness may have got much closer to Monsieur Joe with a clear run last time, with a similar performance and better luck in running he also has a shout at 12/1.

What is Pace in Horse Racing? And how to use it.

/in /by
An example of pace predicting a winner

Another example of pace predicting a winner

There are some racing jurisdictions in the racing world where pace is as fundamental a 'handicapping' tool as you can get. In places like America, even beginner bettors understand the concepts of pace and its likely effect on race outcomes.

Strange, then, that for so long pace has been completely overlooked by UK punters. The main reasons for this are twofold. Or perhaps one-and-a-half-fold, as they're directly connected.

First, there's the almost complete lack of pace data or information. Obviously, this creates a barrier to entry, because any savvy bettor wanting to establish the likely pace scenario in a race has to do all the crunching himself (or herself). It is not a quick or easy task.

And second, related to point one, is the almost blanket lack of understanding around how pace affects the outcome of horse races.

This WILL change in the next few years, as information boundaries are pushed with new racing data publishers challenging the half-asleep establishment content providers. geegeez.co.uk aims to be something of a pioneer in the space and, in today's video post, there is an introduction to the basic concepts of pace, and an example of how pace can be easily assimilated into your betting using the geegeez race cards.

Note, these concepts are not hard to understand, but they are new for most people. In that novelty, some will automatically switch off. Those that embrace the new data are far better armed for the betting battles through the summer particularly. To use a well worn, if unattractive, cliché, having this exclusive information to hand is like taking a gun to a knife fight.

So here's the video. [There's a full screen button in the bottom right corner, which will help].

**

I hope it mostly made sense, and that you can see the value in the information even if it hasn't automatically registered completely with you.

If you're not already a Gold subscriber - meaning you have access to this valuable information - you can register here.

To upgrade a free account to Gold, click here.

And if you have any questions on the subject of pace, please leave a comment below, and I'll do what I can to answer.

It's nice to have something a bit different to think about, and this pace information is available in very few places currently, so you really do have a head start on almost all punters. Get to grips with it, and use it to your advantage!

Matt

How to Prepare for the Cheltenham Festival

/in , , /by
Let BSM teach you how to drive Cheltenham profits up.

Let BSM teach you to drive Cheltenham profit up

The Cheltenham Festival 2014 is almost upon us and, with the unending bombardment of data, stats, bookie offers, stable whispers, preview nights, and tips (many of them emanating from these virtual pages, it should be added!), it can be hard to see the winning wood from the information overload trees.

So, in this post, I'll outline my 'Driving to Cheltenham Profits with BSM' methodology. It's nothing to do with a certain car training school, but everything to do with a three step process to keep yourself honest in the midst of what is always a week of frenzied activity.

Now, before I go any further, I should say that if Cheltenham's four day Festival is just another race meeting for you - if you do nothing differently from any other racing day - then fair play, this post will probably have limited utility.

If, however, you take the 27 races which comprise National Hunt's Olympics as a sort of personal, maybe even professional, challenge, then this will hopefully act as a timely aide memoire to retaining sanity, at the very least.

OK, with that said, let me introduce you to the first of my BSM components:

Bank

As I've scribbled above, and you probably know, there are 27 races spread across the four days of Cheltenham. From the big fields of unexposed novices to the even bigger fields of wily handicappers - many of whose talent lights have been hidden under various inappropriate engagement bushels for the larger part of the season - the Cheltenham Festival is a minefield for punters.

Consequently, it makes sense to allocate a separate ring-fenced betting pot, specifically for the week. By doing so, you'll be forced to think in terms of four days and 27 races, rather than lurching from race to race, wager to wager.

The nature of the Festival is that a significantly disproportionate amount of the publicity is focused on the first day. It's usually correct to say that Cheltenham Tuesday offers the highest calibre of racing; but that doesn't necessarily translate into it having the best wagering opportunities. Bookies are looking to get online accounts loaded on Day One, so you bet with them subsequently, and the vast majority of the best offers relate to the first day as a result.

But those who burn brightly on Tuesday only to fizzle out by early Thursday face a long walk home, in purely metaphorical terms of course (at least, I hope that's the case!)

So how much are you setting aside to wager across the Festival? And how might you divide that fund over the four days?

If you know you like a couple on Friday, make sure you've either already backed them, or you've left an adequate slice for that purpose. There's little in betting more soul-destroying than doing it in before your main fancy comes along; then limping onto it because you're 'short-stacked'; and seeing it romp home. That's an ugly, and wholly avoidable, scenario.

Finally on Bank, it doesn't make sense, unless you're following a tipping service, to bet level stakes, especially if you're intending - like me - to bet in every race, to some degree or other. Which brings me on to my second element of BSM...

Strengths

Know your strengths. As trite as that may sound, keep it in mind as the week progresses. What's your wagering / handicapping forte? Are you a judge at picking out 'plot' horses in handicaps? Do you have an all-seeing eye when it comes to Championship races? Can you skilfully infer improvement in novice horses?

Unless you're a full-time pro, the truth is likely to be that you're none of the above. But you will still be more akin to one of those types than the others. As such, it makes sense to focus more of your energies on that which you are most adept, and less on that which you are most inept.

For me, this means a primary focus on the Championship races and some of the novice events, and a cursory review of the handicap form using a few tools and techniques I've developed to shortlist the fields.

Obviously, then, betting one point level stakes across that varied punting panorama is plain daft. I will be wagering in line with the strength of my opinions, and I will live or die (again, metaphorically only!) by those opinions.

That means I will be getting stuck into a couple of Championship events; I will be having a reasonable tickle on some in the novice races; and I'll generally be mucking about in the handicaps, hoping to get lucky at a price (which, of course, is perfectly possible at Cheltenham, where lots of good horses are sent off at a price).

[Note, if you've been following my Cheltenham race previews, you'll know I've hammered one handicapper, though it's not one of the traditional handicap events... Hint: I've only previewed one handicap 😉 ]

So, what are your strengths? Give it a bit of thought if you haven't already, and try to "gear your portfolio" accordingly.

That leads us nicely into the final third of my punting triptych (good horse, she was)...

Mindset

Incorporating pieces of both Bank and Strengths, Mindset is crucial when betting, especially when we're exposed to the searing heat of a furnace of fetlocks and fancies for four full days.

It's always interesting to note the reactions of big punters - those whose responses can be publicly viewed, anyway - like JP McManus. They seem to maintain a Kipling-esque stoicism, greeting "those two impostors" of Triumph and Disaster even-handedly.

Of course, inside, they're probably cartwheeling or crying. But managing those emotions is the key to not losing - or gaining - too much confidence.

The thing with a meeting like Cheltenham is that plenty of winners are sent off at 12/1, 14/1, 16/1 and bigger. If your modus operandi is, like mine, to be frequently involved at that sort of price, then - even if you're very good - you'll incur longish losing sequences.

It is of paramount importance to remember that this is par for the course, and to continue to trust yourself. The worst thing bettors can do if they have an overall knack of finding enough nice-priced winners to pay for the losers and manage some bunce left over, is to chase the top of the market in the hope of clawing things back.

Firstly, it's not a part of the market for which you'll have the same 'value barometer'. And secondly, even when you do catch a winner - or even two - it's unlikely to return the fund to parity.

What we're actually doing when we adopt this approach is seeking comfort in correctness: a little ego stroke and reassurance when the winners have absented themselves. Always keep in mind one of the maxims of geegeez in times like this:

"What do you really want? Winners? Or profit?"

Finding winners at Cheltenham is bloody hard. But if you're safe in the knowledge that when they're unearthed, they generally pay for a lot of losers, then you're ahead of the pack mentally. Don't give in to self-doubt. After all, if you've set aside a bank and you've still got some of it to tickle the Grand Annual, the final race of 27, you've done well, win, lose or draw.

And keep in mind another geegeez maxim too:

"If it's not fun, we might as well go and get a job"

The most important aspect of mindset - even if you're a professional - is to enjoy Cheltenham's slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

It's going to be great!!! 🙂

Matt

p.s. here's Rudyard with a poem so utterly magnificent it's been confined to cliché in pieces such as this. But if ever a man captured the very essence of what it is to engage in the betting battle at Cheltenham, it was - unwittingly - the fellow whose namesake baked exceedingly good cakes.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

Are Field Sizes in Terminal Decline?

/in , /by

A tweet by an American racing scribe last night piqued my interest regarding the equivalent issue of field size here in the UK. @o_crunk posted the following:

USJanFieldSize

Stateside, the year on year (y-o-y) decline from an average of 8.16 runners per race to an average of 7.86 equates to just shy of a 4% reduction. That sits in the context of an increase in the number of races, from 2,550 last year to 2,619 this January.

So, what of good old Blighty? How is racing and its field sizes holding up? First, the headline figures.

January 2014 accommodated 637 races at an average of 8.07 runners per race. That compares with 608 races last January at an average of 8.41 runners per race. The decline in average numbers is in line with that of our transatlantic cousins, at around 4%. But the broader picture makes for uncomfortable reading. Below is a list of the number of races, and average runners per race from 2007, 2010, 2013, and this year.

2007 - 600 races - 10.06 av runners
2010 - 525 races - 8.96 av runners
2013 - 608 races - 8.41 av runners
2014 - 637 races - 8.07 av runners

The decline in average number of runners from 10.06 in 2007 to 8.07 in 2014 is stark. It equates to a 20% drop over a seven year period, a reduction that is patently unsustainable.

Against that, we see an increase in the number of races, from 600 to 637, of 6%. The question begs to be asked, why?

Whilst the microcosm of January helps to frame the issue, there are several issues at play in parallel, and they require teasing out. In the remainder of this post, I'll look at various breakdowns of the overall data in search of underlying issues.

I'll consider turf racing in January (i.e. National Hunt) versus all weather racing; I'll look for any possible problems with the distribution by class; and I'll probe more deeply into the races by number of runners, by handicap versus non-handicap, and by going, to see what lies therein.

First, lest you think the four years in the table above were cherry-picked, here is the full y-o-y view of January racing from 2003 to the present.

 

 

You can see that in January 2003, the average number of runners per race was nigh on eleven, more than satisfactory. In 2014, the figure of 8.07 is alarming. Over more than a decade, it is reasonable to expect that any outlier years have been smoothed by the curve, and the correlation between these data looks extremely robust.

In plain English, there IS a problem here. Probably more than one.

Let's dig further and try to isolate some of the challenges British racing faces, at least in terms of the size of its fields.

First, I want to look at all weather against National Hunt. I should declare before we proceed that I am a fan of all weather racing, and I am a fan of National Hunt racing. So I have no axe to grind. Rather, I hope the numbers will speak for themselves.

All weather racing will celebrate its 25th anniversary on 30th October this year, so it was already a mature part of the sport by 2003, the earliest year in this sample. Below is a table showing the average runners per race each January from 2003 to 2014.

 

AWRunnersperRaceJan

Note the huge decline between 2006 and 2008, when the average fell from 11.23 runner per race to 8.13 runners per race. This coincided with a massive increase in races, from 246 in 2006 to 362 in 2008.

In percentage terms, all weather racing lost 28% of its average race runners at the same time it gained 47% more fixtures.

Since 2008, the average number of runners per January all weather race has not really changed materially - 8.13 in 2008 and 8.06 in 2014. The number of races each January in that time has also remained fairly constant: after the aberration of 362 in 2008, there has never been more than 336 since then, and the average has been 317 from 2009 to 2014.

The number of runners in all weather races, in absolute terms, has remained constant over the last five January's, at around 2600. 2012 was an exception, when the number of races shrank by almost 20% due to postponements.

AWRunnersperRaceJan2

So what, if any, conclusions can we draw from those all weather data? Probably the clearest observation is that the volume of races has affected the average field size. Whilst that in itself is not an issue - after all, the bookmakers want more racing (or 'product' as they like to refer to it) - the average number of runners is now precariously close the golden number of eight.

Eight is the minimum number of runners in a race in which three places are paid on each way betting, and it is a minimum threshold keenly sought by the bookmaking fraternity, whose turnover drops significantly on smaller field races. Indeed, the big four bookies have voluntarily offered an additional payment for the first time this year, in a bid to bolster field sizes... and, one suspects, as a pre-emptive move against the impending point of consumption tax.

As things stand then, an average number of runners per race of 8.06 is borderline acceptable for all weather racing and, in the context of 2013's January average of 7.91 it represents a possible green shoot of recovery. Time will tell on that front.

**

What, then, of the field sizes in National Hunt races?

NHRunnersperRaceJan

Although the most recent figures are broadly the same - average number of runners in National Hunt races in January 2014 was 8.08 compared to 8.06 for all weather races - the rate of decline, this time unchecked, is of major concern.

Whereas all weather racing experienced a rapid decline in line with an increase in the number of races between 2006 and 2008, and has subsequently 'flat lined' largely, National Hunt racing figures were fairly stable between 2003 and 2009, but have dropped dramatically since then.

The average between 2003 and 2009 was 10.76 runners per NH race in January. Between 2010 and 2014, the average has plummeted to 9.08. Moreover, the best January in the last five years saw an average of 10.02 runners per NH race. That compares with the worst year in the previous seven of 10.12.

The average of 8.08, if taken at face value, is a massive drop from last January's 9.01 average and a devastating slump from 2011's 10.02 average.

I write "if taken at face value" because it is worth asking whether there are circumstantial elements in play which have impacted the figures here. The most obvious culprit is the weather. So, did January 2014 have more races run on heavy ground, and is that a material factor in the figures?

Ignoring the all weather National Hunt races in the sample, which tend to be very well subscribed, the figures for the period 2003 - 2014 (January each year only) aligns with what we'd expect: good to soft is optimal jumping ground, and heavy is the least favoured of winter ground.

NHRunnersperRaceJan_Going

It is then reasonable to say that heavy ground is a material factor in field size, especially after as wet a January as we have experienced this year. To level the playing field, below are the average number of runners in January National Hunt races staged on heavy ground since 2003.

NHRunnersperRaceJan_Heavy

For the first time, it becomes difficult to immediately spot a correlation between ground and field size. However, the downward slope of the graph since 2009 maps to the same southbound trend for average runners per race as a whole.

And the average for heavy ground races in January 2014 of 7.71 is not so different to the 8.08 for all races in that month.

**

Let us now look at the distribution of races by number of runners. That is, for instance, how many two- to four-runner races were there? Here are the data for January 2014, covering both all weather and National Hunt.

distracesbyrunnersJan14

Most races were between five and ten runners, with 38% having five to seven horses, and 34% eight to ten horses. Just 19.47% of races could boast eleven or more runners, and 53 of the 637 races run in January suffered an embarrassment of runners less than the each way place quorum for two places.

The distribution comparison between all weather and National Hunt was surprisingly similar. Looking at the 2014 figures in comparison with the 2013 figures, it is most noteworthy that races comprising eleven-plus fields made up nearly a quarter of January 2013 events (23.68%), whereas in 2014 they were less than a fifth (19.47%).

And, whereas 56.41% of races run in January 2013 had eight or more runners (and therefore three each way places to shoot at), that was down to 53.69% last month.

**

Another area worthy of investigation is that of the rise and rise of handicap races. Are they good for the sport? Are they good for the funding of the sport? Whilst those two questions almost certainly have different answers, it is indisputable that handicaps have a healthier impact on field size than non-handicaps, taken as a whole.

For the period 2003-2014, and solely for 2014, the January totals were as follows:

hcapvsnonhcap

The disparity, in terms of average number of runners, for the whole period is just over 2%. That is, there were just over 2% more runners per handicap race than per non-handicap race between 2003 and 2014 (January's only).

Last month, the disparity was an eye-watering near 15%. Whilst it is reckless to make definitive statements based on a single month's data, it would certainly appear that the race planning department's tinkering with various segments of the non-handicap programme has been unsuccessful. And, moreover, any pandering to trainers who bemoan the lack of 'penalty kick' opportunities should be avoided at all costs.

In fairness to race planning, they have made changes aimed at enhancing the programme for fillies and mares, and at increasing the competitiveness of novice events. Their remit is a far broader one than solely field size, but that latter consideration is a crucial one to the successful funding of the sport.

Talking of funding, it is my opinion that the lop-sided distribution of prize money is one of the remaining taboos at the top table of racing politics. Simply put, too much of the available prize fund goes to too few of the owners. Put another way, racing has its own 18th century distribution of wealth model.

It is lamentable that the sport actually allows so many of the good horses to dodge and swerve each other whilst still picking up fat pots en route to the Festival gravy train. It doesn't serve punters; it doesn't serve bookmakers; it doesn't serve the reputation of the sport; and it doesn't serve the vast majority of owners or trainers.

There are too many pattern races. Look at the average number of runners by class, 2003-2014:

runnersbyclassJan2003to2014

Let's break that down by Class 1 to 3, and Class 4 to 7.

Class 1 to 3 - 12,552 runners - 1,365 races - 9.2 average runners per race

Class 4 to 7 - 56,326 runners - 5,786 races - 9.73 average runners per race

The average number of runners in Class 1 races is the lowest of all class levels. Why then should they receive such a disproportionate volume of prize money?

**

Where then does all that tabling and charting leave us?

The implication may be that the sub-dom relationship between BHA's race planning department (doubtless imposed upon them by the 'thought leaders' there) and the bookmaking industry is in danger of splitting its seams, and that further - perhaps - the bookmakers don't actually know how to ask for what they want. The endless demand for 'product' can be argued to have led to smaller fields, which in turn are responsible for reduced bookmaker handle (or turnover).

This January microcosm needs to be set in the full-year context of course, a wider vista which does little to ease concerns. I've written previously about the funding issue, and a snippet from that piece might be instructive here.

...consider that the 2010 pattern’s 142 races (Listed class or better) accounted for £20,483,170 from a total prize money allocation of £67,572,859, to be spread across 6,309 races.

That’s the top 2.25% of races receiving 30.3% of prize money… at an average of £15,275 per runner.

Compare this with the rest of racing’s pyramid, which stretched 69.7% of the prize fund across 97.75% of the races… at an average of just £791 per runner.

The tapering of prize money as one descends racing's class structure is over-zealous, and anachronistic. It dates to before the vastly expanded race programme of recent years, without reasonably considering the needs of stakeholders at the bottom rungs.

There is a perception that the BHA don't want to engage with Class 5 and below, even while recognising the fundamental importance of that volume end of their business.

Low grade racing has become the dog to be kicked, and the root of all racing evils - see the recent Curley gamble backlash - but if the BHA keep sweeping their trash under the carpet, some of it is bound to stink after a while.

Solutions to the field size conundrum need to be both qualitative and quantitative. It is too easy to blithely opine that there is too much racing, and far too much low grade racing. That fails to acknowledge the saprophytic (borderline parasitic?) relationship between the sport and its 'benefactors', the bookmakers; and swingeing cuts at the bottom tier would be akin to treating a verruca by amputating below the knee.

However, it is also true that there probably is too much racing. Certainly, it seems there are too many pattern races, and that is an area that should be addressed. Central funding for races which fail to meet an agreed quota of runners should be cut. This then brings the racecourses into the equation, giving them greater accountability for the success of their flagship events.

Why should the same pot be handed out year after year when field sizes - and thus the spectacle of the contests - dwindle?

The bookmaking fraternity for their part need to understand that their demand for volume of races has a direct impact on field size and, when that drops below 'the dead eight', on turnover.

Perhaps (read, almost certainly) they'd be better off asking for less fixtures and more field size guarantees.

And, as I've written, racecourses need to be more accountable for field size, or risk losing their funding. Fakenham, Ffos Las, Perth, Bangor, Hamilton, Brighton and Yarmouth all have a long-term average of less than eight runners per race. That should not be acceptable to anyone.

How can field sizes be improved? Better track maintenance is a start: while Ffos Las and Perth suffer from geographical issues (why build a course so far from the madding crowds?), Brighton and Yarmouth - and Ffos Las for that matter - are blighted with extremes of going.

Better incentivised prize money is another part-solution. At least one race per meeting should have an 'expenses paid' concession to owners, up to a fixed fee. This would make the costs of travelling - a cost which is often more than third place prize money - more palatable, and encourage owners to consider races they previously would not have.

In greyhound racing - and, like it or not, we are not that very far from there with horse racing in 2014 - owners receive appearance money every time their animal runs. In horse racing, owners pay entry fees. That doesn't seem right, and it's something else that racecourses can do to play their part in both the funding of the sport, and the enhancement of their own spectacles.

Field size and funding are intrinsically linked and, whilst this piece has deliberately ignored macro-economic factors such as recession and increased competition for potential owners' disposable income, those factors do not alter the urgency with which racing needs to tends its own field size wounds.

Given the excellent early successes Paul Bittar enjoyed at the head of the British Horseracing Association, it is disappointing that so little progress has been made in an area that Bittar himself made a top priority in July 2012. The evidence in light of those comments suggests that a different tack is needed, and one in which both racecourses and bookmakers bring more to the table.

Blaming external factors may be convenient - heck, it may even be valid, at least to some degree - but it doesn't help to solve the problem. Merely explaining why things are bad is no use. It's time for racing, led by the BHA, to take action. Drastic action.

Your first 30 days for just £1