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.

A Preliminary Look at Race Class in Flat Handicaps

/in /by

Dipping my toe into Race Class in flat handicaps

Introduction

I would like to start this piece with a question, writes Dave Renham. “When analysing a handicap race, how many of us look at the class of the race and other class factors in detail?”

Clearly, I cannot speak for everyone, just for myself, but in terms of the pecking order of race factors I’ll look at, class considerations are at the lower end of my list of priorities. I would always look at run style/pace, the draw, Peter May’s ratings, last time out (LTO) factors (position, odds, course) first. Once I move on to class factors though, there are five main things I will look at:

  1. which class of race each horse raced in last time and over its last few starts
  2. which horses have won at this level before, or indeed at a higher class level
  3. recent handicap marks or Official Ratings (ORs) over the past few races noting how well the horses ran on each occasion
  4. highest winning handicap marks, as long as they are relatively recent (within 18 months or so)
  5. past placed form and the relative handicap mark at the time

I must admit there are times when, especially if I am looking at a big field handicap, I’ll only do this for the main contenders, or at least the horses I believe are the main contenders! Also, in terms class factors, I know from past research that it is quite difficult to find an edge when taking on the Official handicapper, as the handicapping system in this country is extremely accurate. However, I still want to review what I think I know and compare it against recent evidence.

Data has been taken from UK racing, turf and AW, handicaps spanning the four full years from 2021 to 2024.

Before sharing my research let me discuss the different classes of handicaps. In 2021 and 2022 the European Free Handicap was the only remaining Class 1 handicap, but that race was discontinued thereafter, so the highest class of handicap is now Class 2 - and the lowest level is Class 6.

Within each class there are races open to slightly different ability levels as regards their Official Ratings. Every classification has at least two different rating bands within it, and there may be some variants of these which I've not listed, for example 56-72:

 

Class 2 includes Heritage Handicaps. The rating bands for this class are 86-100, 91-105 and 96-110.

Class 3 The ratings band for this class are 76-90 and 81-95

Class 4 For horses rated 66-80 and 71-85

Class 5 For horses rated 56-70 and 61-75

Class 6 For horses rated 46-60 and 51-65

 

Class 2 Races Overview

Therefore, within each classification there are races where the quality or class level of the runners is slightly different.

Let me give two race examples of Class 2 handicaps run during the period of study. The first race, run on October 16th 2021 at Ascot, was the Class 2 Balmoral Handicap, a 20-runner race where all horses were rated between 101 and 110. The average OR for the race was 105. The second race, run on October 17th 2024 at Southwell, was the Class 2 Download the At the Races App Handicap, a 12-runner race where 11 of the 12 runners were rated 94 or less with the highest rated horse having an OR of 98. The average OR rating for the race was just 91, a difference therefore between the two race OR averages of 14 pounds.

Hence, we need to be aware that the level of competition within each class band can differ, and sometimes quite markedly. Of course, the handicapper, as I have already stated, does an excellent job when rating horses, so in theory the rating adjustments made should ensure races are equally as hard to win regardless of the average OR. Having said that, higher rated runners in Class 2 handicaps do win slightly more often than lower rated ones.

This can be seen when we look at the splits for horses rated 101 to 110 compared with those rated 90 and lower when racing in Class 2 handicaps. Let me look first at qualifiers with a BSP winning price set at a maximum of 20.0. This is to avoid the results potentially being skewed by a huge priced winner or two:

 

 

Horses with a higher rating have outperformed those with a lower one as mentioned above, albeit the difference in absolute win rate is only 1.7%. In relative terms, it is nearly 14% greater. The hugher rated runners recorded a small profit with a difference of just under 7p in the £ when comparing the two rating groups. The A/E index was also higher for the 101 to 110 group.

Just for the record here are the figures for qualifiers priced over 20.0 BSP for each rating band:

 

 

Hence, in this cohort of genuine outsiders, the higher rated Class 2 runners have comfortably outperformed the lower rated runners across strike rate, returns and A/E indices. It should be noted that the 101 to 110 group did not have any 100/1+ winners that would have completely skewed their profit figure. Indeed, it was the 90 or below group which had the biggest priced winner and comfortably so at BSP 146.4.

Class 3-6 Races Overview

We see a similar pattern in different class groupings when comparing the highest rated runners with the lowest, including a price cap of BSP 20.0. Across all class groups the higher rated runners won more often. Differences in win strike rates vary from 3% or higher to 4.5% or higher depending on the class level. In terms of A/E indices the higher rated runners have proved better value in Class 3, 4 and 5 contests. At Class 6 level the lower rated runners have had the edge value wise.

 

Comparing Average Race OR with LTO Average Race OR

Having given us some background, for the remainder of this article, I am going to dig a bit deeper into the whole question of class. I will set an odds range of BSP 20.0 or shorter once more to avoid very big prices skewing the findings. In addition, the horse data I am checking requires the horse to have run in a flat handicap (turf or AW) last time out as well.

I have discussed already that within each race class we can get a significant differential in terms of average race ORs of the runners. For the main body of this article, I want to examine the performance of horses racing in a handicap when comparing the average OR of their current race with the average OR of their last race. I have decided to split the OR race average differences up thus:

 

 

Just to clarify, a horse that raced in a handicap that had an average OR of 76 last time out and races in a handicap with an average OR of 82 this time would go in the '+6 to 9' group as the difference is six higher. A horse racing in a handicap where the average was the same would go into the '+1 to –1' group, and so on.

Let's examine and compare the win strike rates of each group first. I wasn’t sure what I would find but these results come from huge sample sizes so we can be very confident in the numbers:

 

 

As we can see the strike rates are very similar which again perhaps highlights how accurately calculated handicap ratings in this country are overall. The two highest percentages lie at the right of the graph with the '-6 to -9' group and the '-10 or lower' group. If we now compare the A/E indices (to BSP) we again see a very level playing field:

 

 

The figures vary by just 0.03 from the lowest, 0.99, to the highest, 1.02. For the second graph running the '-6 to -9' group and the '-10 or lower' group are marginally better performing than the rest. Both these groups also made a small profit to BSP with their cohort of runners that were BSP 20.0 or less.

 

There are so many different routes I could take at this point, but I elected to fully focus on the '-10 or lower' group for the remainder of this article, as based on these initially findings this could be the group where we find an edge.

 

Handicap Races where Average OR dropped by 10 pounds or more from previous race (also a handicap)

Race Class Change

The first area which I want to look at for this cohort is ‘Race Class Change’ in terms of official classifications (Class 2, 3, 4 etc). Clearly, with a drop in race average OR of 10 or more from LTO, there were always going to be very few qualifiers in terms of being upped in class next time – just 18 horses went up in class to be precise (for the record this small sample made an ROI% loss of 14.4%). Here are the splits for qualifiers racing in the same class or dropped in class:

 

 

According to these figures, the bigger the drop in race class the better. There is positive correlation across strike rates, returns and A/E indices.

What is really interesting is when we look at the race class last time out for any qualifying class dropper. For example, if a horse raced in Class 2 LTO, then raced in Class 3 or lower next time, their record when the average race OR drops by 10 or more is quite remarkable:

 

 

These runners have shown a BSP profit in each of the four years showing excellent consistency with A/E values for each year ranging from 1.08 to 1.21. I, for one, will keep a close eye on these runners in the future.

The Betting Market

Moving onto market factors, and horses that start in the top three of the betting, after seeing the race average OR drop by 10 or more produced a blind profit:

 

 

Returns equated to a smidge under 3p in the £ and, if we stuck to favourites only, returns were marginally better at 3.3p in the £.

When we look at BSP prices, those qualifiers priced between 15.0 and the price cap of 20.0 won just 5.2% of the time (48 wins from 932) for a hefty loss of £133.20 (ROI –14.3%).

Based on this evidence, it seems to make sense to be looking for horses nearer the top end of the betting market more often than not.

Position LTO

How about last time out finishing position? The past stats have favoured horses that finished either second or third last time out. These runners have combined to produce the following figures:

 

 

We see a strike rate close just better one win in every five, and positive returns of over 5p in the £. The A/E index of 1.04 is also very solid. Logic dictated to me that there would not be too many LTO winners that qualified considering the average race class OR drop, but actually there were 204 such winners of which 43 won (SR 21.8%). However, they are very well found in the market and have proved quite costly to follow, losing £28.56 (ROI –14.0%).

Trainers

Trainer data is always something punters are drawn to and for this area of research I think the findings may be more illuminating than usual. One skill that all trainers need is an ability to find the right race for their horses. However, in handicaps there will be times when this may not the case and a trainer will be quite happy to see a moderate or even poor run in the hope that the horse's handicap mark drops. But how many trainers have been adept at finding a much weaker race in an attempt to exploit it? Let’s see.

The table below shows those trainers who had at least 50 runners with a drop in race average OR of 10 or more compared with the average rating of the race they contested last time out. The table is ordered alphabetically:

 

 

We have quite a mixed bag here, but there is a good proportion of trainers who stand out positively including George Boughey, John Butler, David and Mick Easterby, Brian Ellison, David Evans, Richard Fahey, Paul Midgley, Gary and Josh Moore, Nigel Tinkler and Archie Watson.

What may be even more enlightening is to compare the record of the trainers in the above table against their overall record with all other runners under all other circumstances, (e.g. runners whose race average OR changed by -9 or more). Below are the trainers with the biggest differentials between the two in terms of win strike rate:

 

 

We could argue that these nine trainers have been very adept at placing horses in much weaker races compared with the handicap LTO over the past four years. Not only do the strike rates suggest that, the A/E indices for each group show that too:

 

 

 

There are some excellent A/E indices there in the blue columns. Overall, of the 33 trainers in the original table 24 had better records when their charges raced in handicaps with an average race OR of 10 or less compared to their most recent start.

 

Summary

As with a lot of areas I research, I have literally scratched the surface in terms of race class. However, it has been an interesting journey with several positives noted on the way. The second half of the article focused on just one specific group of runners - those who were contested a handicap where the average official rating was at least 10lb lower than their previous race - so there is scope to look in detail at other groupings in the future. For those who want more class articles (no pun intended) please suggest any ideas in the comments.

- DR

2025/26 Footy Season Preview

/in /by

I'm back, with my annual kickball preview that is as deserving of being digital chip paper as anything penned on these virtual pages. I sort of know a bit about racing, though it may not radiate from every stanza scribbled or every suggestion sunk; my grasp of the football form book is more tenuous - that of a keen amateur at best. I'm keen enough, and also amateur enough...

If that hasn't had you clicking for the exit button then thank you for the blind optimism - we'll be in it together, at least - and let's get to business. Before this season, however, a rapid retrospectacle (copyright Thomas Dolby 1994) of last year's wager.

2024/25 Season Review

It was a promotion perm trixie as follows:

Championship: Leeds / Middlesbrough

League One: Bolton

League Two: Port Vale / MK Dons

Boro were the perfect 'data' team: xG through the roof, Hayden Hackney farming midfield metrics... and no end product. Having played like Vesuvius all season - dormant, with the promise of erupting at any moment - they finished by making a molehill out of that volcanic mountain. And that, friend, is possibly the worst metaphor you'll ever read.

Leeds fared better, beating Burnley to the divisional title by a goal difference short head, both clubs finishing as point centurions. They were the favourites, and plenty short enough at 11/10 for promotion, but they got it done.

Bolton did Bolton things in League 1: variously looking like promotion and relegation contenders, sometimes in the same match, before fizzling out tamely in the last quarter of the season.

League 2's double darter was MK Dons and Port Vale. The Dons were well fancied generally, as they seem often to be, but floundered miserably - so miserably in fact that at one point relegation out of the Football League was a genuine possibility. In the end they managed a secure but hopeless 19th. Good luck if you're following the money there again this season (cue facile victory, of course).

Happily, we also had Port Vale, a side reinvigorated and which only failed to win the league on the final afternoon, eventually finishing second in a ding-dong four-way go for much of the spring.

In the finish, then, we managed a double from our perm trixie, even money and 10/3 not covering the losses. 12 units were staked and 8.67 returned. Not disastrous, and a lot of fun had along the way, but let's face it, not great either.

You can relive last season's preview here, if you'd like to...

Enough with yesterday, what about tomorrow?

2025/26 Preview

I'm a week late and annoyed that a couple of major market movers have stolen a march - and the price - on teams I like, one in particular. To mitigate for skinnier prices, I'm taking a treacherous route involving two European League 'bankers'. Obviously, there's no such thing and it will be galling in the extreme to correctly predict the main business while flunking the bonus ball, so whether you want to follow along is entirely your call.

Caveats successfully applied to caveats, then, the first banker is Paris Saint-Germain to win Ligue 1. They are 1/8 and prevailed last season by 19 points. They also won the Champions League. It's hard to say that 1.125 decimal odds represent value but, realistically, the only issues I can see are financial penalties (none mooted, and they just got £100+ million from Club World Cup action - as well as Champions League winning wages) or the fact that they played a LOT of football last season and return off a very short layoff. But it should be remembered that the rest of Ligue 1 is potless, despite Marseilles almost certainly spending beyond their means, and there is a weird (and interesting, it might work!) situation where the TV rights have been brought in house by the league after the collapse of its previous commercial deal. PSG really ought to win, and represent 12.5% on top of the prevailing odds for our other teams.

More speculatively - I guess most things are more speculative than that unless you're of the bridge-jumping punting varietal - I offer 1/3 Bayern Munich. They actually lost the Bundesliga title two seasons ago (the curse of Harry, eh?) before resuming normal service with a 13 point romp last term - go Harry! I'm not crazy about their transfer business this summer - £70m for 28yo Luis Diaz looks punchy - but we don't care about resale value or longevity, only here and now performance. In that context, he's going to do well if he can stay off the injury list.

Of greater materiality, perhaps, is the weakening of one of their main rivals, Bayer Leverkusen. Lederhosen, sorry Leverkusen, bolted up in the Bundesliga two seasons ago and were closest to Munchen last term; but the losses of Florian Wirtz and Jeremie Frimpong to Liverpool and Jonathan Tah to Munich - and perhaps most crucially of manager Xabi Alonso to Real Madrid - are not fully mitigated by the arrival of Malik Tillman, plus Liverpool's Quansah and Brentford's cat, Flekken. It might not be as comfortable as PSG, but Vincent Kompany's prospects of a second successive Bundesliga title seem robust.

Feel free to include or exclude either or both of my 'casual bankers'.

Championship Promotion

There can be a danger in over-thinking the Championship promotion race. Given the untold riches of the Premier League, which extend to parachute payments for trapdoor-plummeting teams, the firm expectation is that the EPL's relegated sides typically stand the best chance of re-election to the top tier. Yes, there are failures; but for every Luton there's a Burnley. And, that, in a nutshell is the case for Ipswich at 11/10.

They have the best manager in the division in Kieran McKenna and have retained most of their Premier League side. Naturally, a couple have gone, notably Liam Delap to Chelsea and Omari Hutchinson linked to an array of Prem sides and missing a friendly at the weekend. But George Hirst looks primed for a big season in the main striker role and there is plenty of creativity via the likes of Jack Clarke and Leif Davis. McKenna has moved to add experience in the form of Ashley Young and David Button, as well as resilience with Azor Matusiwa (who I confess I know nothing about except that he's amassed almost 10,000 minutes in France's top division). Expect more incoming business to an already strong squad.

Sheffield United were comfortably the third best team in the Championship last year, their haul of 90 points fully 14 clear of play-off winners Sunderland. Losing in the play-offs is tough to take but this club's last five seasonal finishes were, oldest to most recent, 20th in Prem, 5th Champs, 2nd Champs, 20th Prem, 3rd Champs. They just always contend in this division. I feel they have to be a better proposition than that dreadful Southampton side which came down - and Saints have lost a number of their better performers. Of course, the window is open for a while longer and further incomings are expected - but that's true for all clubs. The Blades have added a couple from the Bulgarian League - no, me neither - and lost only one key player, Vini Souza, although they need to replace a number of loanees, some of whom were first team personnel last term. There are also some financial issues apparently, though the £13m they got from Wolfsburg for Souza should help. They're a top price 9/4 for promotion.

League 1 Promotion

This was bad last year and it might be again this time around, but I'm singling Stockport County. The price has just about halved from a week or so ago, not helped by an opening day home win over Bolton, but they were the wrong price and may still not be too skinny. County won the National League three seasons ago before finishing fourth and then first in League Two in the following two campaigns. Last term they had the misfortune to bump into Loadsamoney Birmingham and Hollywood Wrexham; nobody apart from those two relative goliaths finished ahead of them.

So that's form of 1413 coming into 2025/26. The squad has seen some upheaval - very common in the lower leagues - but it's mainly been on County's terms with few of their better players leaving. Meanwhile, they've acquired the services of winger Malik Mothersille, a debut scorer at the weekend. That was a good sign as they need to replace their 20 goal top scorer from last season, Tanto Olaofe, who moved on to L1 playoff winners Charlton.

This is a well-supported club with a settled core and proven form in the section. They're still around the 2/1 mark for promotion and that gets us something to cheer down to sixth place - though let's hope we don't need any playoff drama in their case.

National League Winner / Promotion

Even with the luxury of three automatic promotion spots, and playoffs down to 7th, I really don't love League 2. All the more so this season with my bogey, MK Dons, heading the lists. I can't be with them, and I can't really let them beat me either; so I'm swerving it for what looks a two horse race in the National League. Carlisle weren't terrible last season but they were bad enough to fall out of the pro leagues as the second-lowest points scorers in L2.

Amid a revolving door of transfers in and out, Regan Linney looks a strong addition after notching 25 goals last season, 23 of them in this division. Mark Hughes seemed to improve things when entering the dugout in February but he'll need to begin on the front foot this season, starting at Woking on Saturday. I'm siding with Carlisle for promotion at even money. They'll have the top five to get a playoff place, with only the divisional winner - as well as the playoff winner - going up.

At the same time, and this could end up frustrating, I'm backing York City to win the division. It's been a few years - ten - since they were in League Two, and much has happened in that decade including relegation to NL North and an FA Trophy Final win at Wembley. They were close to Barnet all season last time, eventually running up with 96 points. Third placed Forest Green were a further 13 points behind. They are another team to have shortened irritatingly in the past fortnight, but that's mainly because they have such a good chance in a section that is typically weakly contested at the top end. 7/4 is pretty tight but just about playable for a perceived three-horse race (York, Carlisle, the rest).

 

The Bet

If you're still with me, fair play. There is a lot of precariousness in the above, and the value lemon has already been at least half squeezed - hence the Euro banker gamble. In other words, this has even more of a 'fun bet vibe' than usual because we're two weeks too late to the party.

Candidly, I couldn't suggest value purists follow me in; but I do like some action through the footy season and I feel - I certainly hope - there are at least a couple of winners on these tickets. Caveats very much emptored.

My bet, spread across 365 and Hills as top prices on the Euro bankers (365) and Sheff U (Hills) respectively, are below. I've displayed one of the fivefolds with each bookie, rather than faff about with all twelve in detail.

[Click the image to enlarge it in a new window]

Matt's 2025/26 Footy Season Ante Post Perm Trixie

Matt's 2025/26 Footy Season Ante Post Perm Trixie

 

Twelve bets, so for 50p's it's £6, and hopefully a few of these teams take us through the season with some hope in our hearts and, erm, wagers.

Here's the breakdown of the bets:

A1 Ipswich
A2 Sheff Utd
B Stockport
C1 York
C2 Carlisle

365
A1-B-C1
A1-B-C2
A1-B
A1-C1
A1-C2
B-C1
B-C2

Hills
A2-B-C1
A2-B-C2
A2-B
A2-C1
A2-C2

 

Good luck!

Matt

 

p.s. if you play Fantasy Football, you can join the geegeez FFL league using this link. It's just for fun but there's always bragging rights to be had! 😉

The league code is z48hmw

Monday Musings: Getting Older

/in /by

When I was in my early days in Fleet Street, the term “dizzy blonde” used to be a regular description in the Red Top newspapers of young, outgoing females, the blondeness used to express silliness, whether deserved or not, writes Tony Stafford. I have never been blonde, if answering to “bald” nowadays, and now I know what “dizzy” feels like.

Last month, soon after spending three days in the extreme heat of the Newmarket July meeting, I was sitting as I am now in front of my computer screen and everything started rolling around. It lasted two days, innumerable bouts of vomiting which was just bile rather than anything solid and the world kept on spinning.

Vertigo was the obvious answer. Why, though, after all this time? Then Steve Gilbey, my good friend and Raymond Tooth’s long-term security and driver, called the first night when I was too sick to contemplate talking to anyone. He told my wife that two other people he knew had had a similar problem a couple of days earlier and, again, for the first time in their lengthy lives. The conclusion must be the effects of too many hours at such high temperatures.

It wasn’t just human old-timers that were affected. The previous week, before the attack on the players at the Test match by swarms of ladybirds, we had been afflicted in the same way with them all over every surface inside and out for several hours.

When I was young, I used to have awful bouts of migraine, once missing a whole week of school slumped in my bed listening to the radio. It’s coming back to me now, hearing “I Enjoy Being a Girl” by Pat Suzuki from Flower Drum Song – probably 67 years ago, when I was 12. Why that song I’ve no idea. Don’t worry, I’m not for changing!

For the next four decades at least, mention of the word “migraine” had me panicking, often getting another lesser episode. I would hate to think the work “vertigo” would send me toppling over in a similar fashion.

At that time, I even was brought to a teaching hospital in Central London, sitting next to a specialist in a large, tiered hall, in front of a sizeable group of medical students as he related my case to them. I’m not sure it helped, but I have been clear for half a century thankfully.

Two friends also have suffered from the condition. Quite a while ago, Harry Taylor informed me he was unable to come racing with me whatever day it was, as he had vertigo. He ended up in bed for a week and has had the occasional reminder on a milder scale since.

Ironically, when my first attack started, I had been going through and editing the manuscript of the book I’ve recently written with owner-trainer and 82-year-old work rider Victor Thompson and partner Gina Coulson. I’d just got past a chapter, ten minutes earlier, where Victor describes his experiences – you’d never believe it – with vertigo and his remedy for countering it.

He focuses on a spot in the distance, if he’s riding work; one on the ceiling if he’s unable to sleep, and another on the floor if he’s dealing with a horse’s feet. My vision didn’t stop long enough to focus anywhere for two days at least.

Still, the ECG when the medical team – I understand two attractive young women, but I never opened my eyes while they were here, so cannot confirm it - was clear while the blood pressure was very high. So, no biscuits, cakes or sugar of any kind. I’ve no idea what I can eat when I get back to my regular monthly lunches with Editor Matt Bisogno, or in the box at York later this month, which probably will be my full comeback to racing, all being well. Is my room still available, Mr Cannon?

Ten years after that 1958 migraine episode, a young trainer was making his first steps towards a terrific career. Paul Cole could hardly have come from better tutors, having been assistant to Richmond Sturdy and then George Todd, who owned Manton before Robert Sangster acquired it in the 1990s.

I admit my lying low prevented my noticing that Cole, after 57 years as a licensed trainer at the beautiful Whatcombe estate in Berkshire - the last six seasons in concert with middle son Oliver - had retired, at the ripe old age of 83.

There has been little or no discernible change in the success rate of the stable since the joint ownership of the licence, and while I realised that Paul had been around for the whole time I’ve been involved with the sport, it had never occurred to me that he must have been in his mid-80s.

To say he’d served his time was an understatement and always with, at his side, his wife Vanessa. Her death last year was an obvious blow to a man who always showed a stern outlook especially to outsiders.

His training career was little short of miraculous. He regarded 1990 Derby winner Generous as the best he trained. To show his class, he had the speed to win a five-furlong race at Ascot as a two-year-old, something few winners of the great race could have done to start their careers.

Generous went on to win that year’s Dewhurst and, at three, the Derby, Irish Derby and King George. Cole attributed those achievements to the sort of speed he exhibited first time out. Generous’ owner, Fahd Salman, was the main supporter around that time and I remember well the three Royal Ascot Prince Fahd juvenile winners in one week, all backed as though defeat was out of the question. It wasn’t.

If Paul Cole has been rather taciturn throughout his career, son Ollie and for that matter elder son Alex, racing manager to Jim and Fitri Hay, are anything but. I don’t remember meeting the third sibling, Mark.

Ollie has long looked forward to his eventual taking over as sole trainer at Whatcombe and, as he says, “We’d been talking about it for some time, but it was still a surprise when my father finally said a few weeks ago that he was ready to hand it over to me.

“All his life he had been used to getting up at 5 a.m. and in the yard at 5.30. It runs so deeply in his life. Stopping was a wrench for him, but it was finally time to stop. Since my mother’s death last year, it has been horrible for him to be on his own.”

Ollie related that his grandparents had two farms but were unable to provide anything towards the young Paul as he began his journey. “He had to do it all himself, from scratch. He was too tall to be a jockey – trainers wouldn’t employ him to ride their horses so he had to do it the hard way, and what a stellar career it was!

“All my life I’ve been watching and learning and now I’m in the happy position of having had lots of experience and can use all the knowledge I’ve picked up from him over so many years.

“Whatcombe is a wonderful place to train horses and many of our owners are as much friends as clients. Few trainers are as fortunate. My older brother Alex of course has been a big help as manager to the Hays and Anthony Ramsden of Valmont has become a very good friend and is the second-biggest owner in the yard.

"I’m looking forward to continuing Whatcombe’s success and have some ideas to let the potential owners around the sport know that we are a young, dynamic set-up that intends getting back to the top echelon in the sport - and quickly."

Ollie has always been very engaging and has been around the international scene, first as his father’s assistant and then joint trainer. He had big plans to reinvigorate the stable five years ago when he joined forces, but now he can express himself.

The Hays are very much involved as owners at Whatcombe as are Valmont, original owners of last year’s Irish Oaks winner You Got To Me, which Graham Smith Bernal’s syndicate bought into before her victory at the Curragh for the Ralph Beckett stable.

Oliver Cole was quickly off the mark with the three-year-old filly Bela Sonata, who had also won first time out this year for the joint handlers. She easily won a well-contested fillies’ handicap at Newbury last month in the style of an improving filly.

Cole’s placing of the filly in that race was either fortuitous or reflected a keen sense of timing. She is owned by Weatherbys Racing Club and no doubt racing’s administrators’ much-travelled senior director Nick Craven would have been on site to enjoy the post-race celebrations.

It came only three races after the Weatherbys Super Sprint, their biggest sponsorship of the season, won by race-specialist Rod Millman’s Anthelia. That was the principal reason for Nick’s attendance.

He’ll also be needed tomorrow when he and I have a go through Victor’s “80 Years In The Fast Lane” with the production team. Weatherbys will be publishing it later this year.

Nick was on duty at Goodwood last week when the star of the meeting was Beckett’s 150/1 shot Qirat, belying his pacemaker status in benefit of long odds-on Juddmonte-owned Field Of Gold in the Sussex Stakes.

Beckett had convinced the Juddmonte management team to allow him to supplement the four-year-old at the five-day stage for £70,000 that would have got back £57k if he had managed fourth behind the three apparent major players, Field Of Gold, Rosallion and Henri Matisse, the latter pair running second and third. Instead, it was Field Of Gold who got the consolation prize for fourth, John Gosden stating that he “just didn’t fire”.

 

 

Not far behind in terms of merit was Coolmore’s Whirl in the Nassau, Aidan O’Brien’s filly making all from an old-style barrier start under Ryan Moore. She coped admirably with the rain-drenched conditions and must be the top staying filly around.

 

 

The Coolmore boys would also have been happy at the half-length Haskell win of Journalism, into which they had bought an interest, at Saratoga on Saturday evening.

 

 

Apart from his two defeats by generational leader Sovereignty, Journalism comfortably heads the remainder in what looks a very solid team of Classic three-year-olds in the US.

  • TS

2025 Draw Bias: Qatar ‘Glorious’ Goodwood Festival

/in /by

This week we enjoy the 2025 renewal of the prestigious Qatar 'Glorious' Goodwood Festival on the rolling Sussex Downs. To finish in front at a festival meeting contested on such a quintessentially quirky track requires more than traditional 'which is the best horse' form study. Preparations for those serious about the week begin with homework revision on the layout of the circuit and the implications on race shape.

Draw is rarely as simple - and occasionally not as complicated - as the pundits will tell you in their one line summaries, and run style remains an often overlooked component of the puzzle. Let's first review the course configuration. These are Goodwood's helter-skelter pistes:

 

 

If you're confused, you'll not be alone. There is a tight right-hand loop and a straight of a little shy of half a mile from which point the run in is pretty much all downhill - having been largely uphill to the turn.

Goodwood is normally a front-runner's track, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when horses get to the turn into the straight, they tend to fan wide, some giving up ground just at the moment the pacemaking railers are stealing a length or two in their bid for glory. Secondly, horses held up for a later run can get trapped in a pocket with the far rail of the home straight cambering away from the grandstands. That said, a cutaway has been introduced more recently to try to offset those patiently ridden runner challenges, and this has made life fairer for all that the clearest passage is usually still in front or coming wide.

Clerk of the Course Edward Arkell reports,

"False rail will be in place on the Top and Bottom Bends and on the Straight to 2f leaving a cutaway for Tuesday and Wednesday. The cutaway will move back to 3.5f on Thursday. All remaining false rail will be removed for Friday and Saturday."

So that's the complicated layout of the track. Now what of the weather? The going is currently good after a mixed meteorological bag in the lead up the meeting; the forecast for later in the week is less clear cut, with a small amount of rain projected for Tuesday afternoon and a larger (5mm) amount possible on Thursday. Typically, these are bands of showers and so could produce significantly more - or almost none at all - depending on whether they tumble on the track or skirt it. ¿Comprende? Anyway, more helpfully, the latest going and weather station news can be found here.

We'll work on the basis of good or good to soft ground, but note that it may get a little wetter from Thursday onwards; obviously, check the forecast and the weather station link above as the days pass.

Goodwood 5f and 6f Draw / Run Style Bias

The five and six furlong races at Goodwood are run on a straight track and, being a right-handed track, the high numbers are closest to the near/stands' rail.

As regular readers will know, using the Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) metric can be a lot more instructive than simple win and place percentages, especially when the sample sizes are smallish. PRB gives a score to every runner in every race, with the exception of last placed finishers who beat 0% of their rivals. Here's how the PRB draw / run style draw chart looks for Goodwood straight track sprints on good or good to soft:

 

Goodwood 2025: 5f & 6f Draw Bias

Goodwood 2025: 5f & 6f Draw Bias

 

It's pretty fair, though high draws have been at a small disadvantage as races often crystallise towards the middle of the track. The heat map underscores that statement: front-runners and, to a lesser degree, prominent racers have done well - and note that central seam of pale green implying a small benefit from a middle draw regardless of run style (except held up - this is not typically a sprint track for slow starters).

 

Goodwood 2025: 5f & 6f Run Style Bias

Goodwood 2025: 5f & 6f Run Style Bias

 

Goodwood 7f Draw / Run Style Bias

As we move onto the round course and races of seven furlongs or a mile, things get a little more clear cut. Let's start by looking at 7f handicaps on good or good to soft, 12+ runners. Here's the table showing wins, places and PRB amongst other things specifically for fast ground 7f handicaps since 2009:

 

Goodwood 2025: 7f Draw Bias

Goodwood 2025: 7f Draw Bias

 

Low is strongly favoured and has won more races than middle and high combined, with high at a notable disadvantage regardless of your preferred metric. Breaking that down further, the PRB3* graph and draw/run style heat map are equally unambiguous:

*PRB3 takes the average percentage of rivals beaten of a stall and its immediate neighbours and is a sensible way of 'smoothing the curve' of draw charts

 

Goodwood 2025: 7f Run Style Bias

Goodwood 2025: 7f Run Style Bias

 

Low is definitely the best place to be, followed by a pace presser / forward goer from a middle or high draw (seemingly the only way to win from high).

 

Goodwood 1 Mile Draw / Run Style Bias

Looking at mile handicaps through the same field size/going prism reveals a more level playing field:

 

Goodwood 2025: 1m Draw Bias

Goodwood 2025: 1m Draw Bias

 

There are not many races in the sample and the key takeaway is perhaps the torrid time front-runners have endured. Indeed, just one of the twelve horses to have led or shared the lead made the frame. Low and somewhat patiently ridden appears optimal; but luck in transit might be required!

 

Goodwood 2025: 1m Run Style Bias

Goodwood 2025: 1m Run Style Bias

 

The Golden Mile itself typically has a strong low draw bias - indeed, it's been one of the strongest draw bias races in the entire racing calendar, with just three winners exiting a stall higher than ten from the rail since 2009 when our database starts:

 

Goodwood 2025: Golden Mile Actual Draw Bias Stats

Goodwood 2025: Golden Mile Actual Draw Bias Stats

 

But... One of that trio of wide drawn winners was Johan in 2023, drawn 18 of 20, when the going was soft. And last year, on good to firm, the outside pair of stalls were first and second with the third placed finisher coming from five from the car park in a 16-runner field. Is this a paradigm shift? I doubt it, is my current answer. Last year, when there was no cutaway, horses on the inside got no run at all while the first three home got clear(ish, in the case of second placed Dutch Decoy) passage wider. All three podium finishers managed to get midfield sits a couple of horse widths off the rail after a quarter mile, where they might typically expect to be wider and/or further back from such draws.

 

 

Confidence in the claim that the Golden Mile is one of the strongest draw biases of the year is dented but not extinguished and I'll again be siding low with the cutaway in place. But I'm open-minded in terms of whether we've witnessed the fin de siecle on this particular Golden age of punting shortcuts.

Stay lucky!

Matt

 

Galway 2025: Flat Race Draw and Run Style Bias

/in /by

As well as the Qatar 'Glorious' Goodwood festival, this same week witnesses Galway's seven-day bonanza at which there is almost literally a race for every horse. The programme covers the full gamut from two year old maidens to exposed handicap chasers. Here, we'll focus our attention on the flat handicaps ahead of the 2025 renewal of the famous meeting at Ballybrit.

 

 

Shaped like a diamond, key features of the mile and a quarter Galway oval are sharp turns, undulations, and a stiff uphill quarter-mile run to the finish line. There is a shortish distance from the seven furlong start to the first of two bends, both of which require wider drawn runners in bigger fields to either take back and wait or risk conceding ground on the turns.

7f handicaps

With the going forecast yielding on the flat course and only spits and spots of rain forecast for the week, this is how draw and run style might impact the ability of horses to make the frame in Galway 12+ runner seven furlong handicaps.

On good ground through to yielding, there is a weak inside draw bias. As the table below shows, the same number of winners have come from low and high, but the bigger place and PRB sample sizes hint at low having a small edge - though not nearly as much as on faster turf.

 

Galway Races 2025: 7f Draw Bias

Galway Races 2025: 7f Draw Bias

 

However, if there's little in it from a draw perspective, run style is highly material as the heat map below demonstrates. The almost unbroken block of green for leaders and prominent racers contrasts directly with the shades of orange for midfield and held up types. The summary is that it matters much less where you're drawn than how you race: favour those with the tactical toe to be in the front half of the field early.

 

Galway Races 2025: 7f Run Style Bias

Galway Races 2025: 7f Run Style Bias

 

1m 1/2f handicaps

At the extended mile distance the run to the first turn is longer with an inside rail that's always leaning against wider-drawn horses, and there's obviously more of a premium on stamina thus not doing too much too soon. Here, the draw bias seems to be favour middle-berthed runners, that third of the draw having won as many races as low and high combined in the past ten years. However, a look at placed and PRB figures indicates a slight negative bias against wide runners. Again, though, we need to think about draw in relation to run style...

 

Galway Races 2025: 1m 1 1/2f Draw Bias

Galway Races 2025: 1m 1 1/2f Draw Bias

 

Here we see a similar story to the 7f trip where those in the second half of the field are likely to have to travel further around the outside, or trust to luck navigating a shorter path, while those racing prominently or on the speed can enjoy clear sailing if they've saved enough for the finish. The evidence again points to it being tougher generally for wide drawn horses overall, and yet their win and place numbers hold up fairly well. I'd be inclined to slightly lean middle to inside but would certainly not discount a high drawn contender whose profile I otherwise liked.

 

Galway Races 2025: 1m 1 1/2f Run Style Bias

Galway Races 2025: 1m 1 1/2f Run Style Bias

 

1m 4f+ handicaps

Unusually, there remains some residual bias in longer distance handicaps on this sharp always-leaning-in circuit. It's most pronounced at 1m4f, where low drawn and/or pace pressing horses have had the edge but, as the table below illustrates, some sort of advantage is gained at all flat distances for those on the lead.

Galway Races 2025: 1m 4f+ Draw Bias

Galway Races 2025: 1m 4f+ Draw Bias

 

Galway Races 2025: 1m 4f+ Run Style Bias

Galway Races 2025: 1m 4f+ Run Style Bias

 

Those travelling the least distance have fared best - go figure 😉

Good luck!

Matt

Monday Musings: Wokism

/in /by

There was a race at Thirsk on Friday which has given me at least a double pause for thought, although the first of them was barely a pause, just a momentary operational stalls malfunction which brought a ridiculous decision from the course stewards, writes Tony Stafford. Indeed the worst in the history of racing in this and probably any other country.

The 4.35 race was a handicap over 1m4f. Post-race, the stewards stuck their heads together and were satisfied that the berth occupied by the grey, Red Force One, had opened after the others, and declared the horse a non-runner. Presumably they came to that conclusion at least in part as he would not have qualified for any prize money, which he didn’t, finishing tailed off.

I had reason to look at the race a couple of times, still having no clue that anything had been amiss. As the stalls opened, you could see the grey horse was a stride or so behind the others at the outset, ambled along for the first 20 strides easily into the leading group and after a furlong was right in the hunt.

Flat racers probably go around 30 strides to a furlong, so somewhere near 360 strides in a mile and a half race. Thus, if he was inconvenienced at all by the blink of an eye slower exit, it represented one of the 360 strides of the race – 0.28% of the full distance. No wonder he was a non-runner!

Would the stewards still have declared him thus if he had won the £5k plus first prize or even been placed? Wokism, or rather Jokism. Racing is going to the dogs if we have people like these administering the Rules in this way.

The race itself threw up a winner for my great friend Wilf Storey, 85 I believe and still going strong, or rather, strongish, given that the stable strength at Grange Farm stables, Muggleswick is down to a handful. But the team with granddaughter Siobhan Doolan also to the fore, had five wins last year and now two this season, both with the ex-Charlie Fellowes filly Idyllic, from just 13 runs.

I went to see the then three-year-old after Siobhan had successfully bid 9,000gns for her at Newmarket’s HIT sale last backend. Once a winner for Fellowes from ten runs after her 62k yearling purchase, she is by Bated Breath, who stands at £8,000 at Juddmonte, so was hardly excessively priced when Siobhan pounced.

But here comes my bone of contention. She was ridden with rare judgment, strength and skill by the 3lb claiming Paula Muir, who after Friday has ten more wins to go before she loses her claim. If you seem to think Scots lass Paula has been around for a while still to be claiming, you would be right.

In the two years 2018 and 2019 she rode first 22 winners from 216 rides and then 15 from 257. So far this year, she has had the grand total of 13 rides. That’s right, 13, coincidentally the same number as Wilf has sent out with the same horse providing both successes. And ten of those have been for Wilf, who also contributed five of last year’s seven victories, although she did have a more credible 82 rides in 2024.

Chatting to Wilf after the win, he said, “I can’t understand it. Here’s a girl who had had more than 1,000 career rides and now 85 wins. She does a light weight, and she’s really strong and can claim 3lb, yet she can’t get a ride.”

Wilf told me she rides out for Kevin Ryan. “I understand it’s usually on the difficult ones, or those two-year-olds coming up for a first run. She gets a fair bit of knocking about and told me she might pack it all in at the end of the season.”

Investigating this apparent statistical oddity I found that, apart from the ten rides for Storey, she has had one each for another Durham handler in David Thompson - a horse that won its previous race but was 4th of eight when she rode it and did not keep the mount next time, Barry Murtagh and Ryan. Murtagh put her on a 150/1 chance which ran entirely to expectations finishing last of 15 while Kevin Ryan entrusted her with a 50/1 debutant that again didn’t confound the betting market in last of eight.

Before Saturday, Ryan had sent out 40 winners this year from 308 runners, with 33 individual winners from the 94 horses he had raced. You might have thought he could have found her a ride or two more with chances of doing something. A win for his powerful stable would undoubtedly give Paula’s career that little bit of help she needs to help push her back into the limelight.

Every horse she rides gets a proper go as you will see if you watch the video of Friday’s win. Having got Idyllic back on terms with the favourite Ancient Myth, ridden by Mark Winn (ten wins from 138 rides this year) for David O’Meara, that had swept past her at the furlong pole, she pushed her mount back on terms and, confidently with hands and heels, took control for a comfortable neck win.

As I said, watch the race and tell me why she shouldn’t be riding every day of the week rather than the twice a month of 2025. It was planned for her to renew her acquaintance with last year’s dual winner Edgewater Drive at Ayr today, but the ground has dried up too much for him.

Back to Idyllic. Having raced at 1m3f in her previous three races, Idyllic was now up another furlong at Thirsk. Somehow the Wilf Storey horses, especially the females, over the many years of his career and our friendship, always seemed to become more stamina oriented as they developed. It will not shock me to see Idyllic winning over even two miles later in the year.

**

Admittedly, the five-runner field that divvied up the best part of £1.5 million for the King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Ascot on Saturday, did comprise a field of Group 1 horses. But it left a sour taste that 2023 St Leger winner Continuous – tailed off after playing a significant role in the majority of the race - could cop forty grand for last place as the Aidan O’Brien second-string. It was £110k for a below-par Jan Brueghel, Coolmore’s number one, in fourth. It would be understandable if most racegoers found that to be money hardly well spent.

Ascot’s Nick Smith did his best to justify this 20% rise from last year’s figure which meant that Francis-Henri Graffard, who won both races, last year with 25/1 shot Goliath and now with 11/10 favourite Calandagan, is well over £1.5 million in stable earnings from the two victories.

The obvious rejoinder to Smith’s case was the standing still in money of many other races around Ascot from top to bottom level. This race is the jewel in the course’s crown, but it is no coincidence, that neither winner will ever be on show in their own country’s biggest event, the Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe in October, from which geldings are excluded.

One who will presumably have booked her place having finished runner-up only a length behind the winner is the Andrew Balding-trained filly, four-year-old Kalpana, who looked sure to win when Oisin Murphy sent her past the one-paced Jan Brueghel. He, with Continuous, did not help Rebels Romance’s cause as the second string raced on leader Jan Brueghel’s girth until the action heated up in the straight.

Ascot is legion for trouble in running up its short straight even in small fields. That seems absurd given the wide expanse of the track – two handicaps on Saturday were scheduled to field 22-runner races and there were little noticeable hard-luck stories in them. At the Royal meeting, some handicaps accommodate 32 runners. The Godolphin horse was the one that was hamstrung as Kalpana sneaked through between horses and Calandagan came widest of all after lobbing along in last place for the first ten furlongs of the race.

Calandagan clearly found Ascot an easier track to handle than Epsom where Jan Brueghel beat him narrowly in the Coronation Cup. If he didn’t already have it with a series of previous near-misses at the top level, it was cemented that day at Epsom in which he earned the reputation among many (including me) of being a little wimpish.

There was no sign of a wimp from him now though, as he followed up an easy Group 1 score in France last time by reeling in Kalpana, unlike those Thirsk stewards the day before. The BHA should announce an investigation and with seemingly no possible argument to the contrary, turf out the culprits!

- TS

The Vagaries of Early Speed: Soft Leads and Pace Collapses

/in /by

The Vagaries of Early Speed: Soft Leads and Pace Collapses

In recent years the question of pace in a race has become much more on punter’s radars, writes Dave Renham. When we watch flat racing on the television, pundits or commentators will almost always include a discussion about where the pace in the race is, and who is likely to lead.

Introduction

The pace in a race is linked to run style, and I have written numerous articles analysing the run style of horses in both flat and National Hunt racing on this site. These articles, which can be found here, have often highlighted the edge front runners enjoy in races over certain distances at certain tracks. In this article I want to try as best I can to compare races where front runners get an uncontested lead, as opposed to races where there is strong competition for the early lead. I have decided to focus on handicaps of 1 mile or less in UK flat racing. I have looked at around 3000 races which is a very decent sized dataset.

I had two objectives. Firstly, to look at races where the leader got a ‘soft’ or ‘uncontested’ lead. In other words, a race where the front runner was not pestered in front and could potentially dictate the race. In an ideal world that would see the leader setting slow fractions thus saving more energy for later in the race, meaning there was more chance of the horse making all of the running to win. And secondly, I wanted to look at the opposite type of race, where there was strong competition for the lead with multiple horses up with or very close to the pace. In this type of scenario, the expectation is that those near the front will typically go off too hard, using too much energy, which makes it easier for a more conservatively ridden horse to come late and win from off the pace.

The problem with researching these ideas, is how to accurately determine which races fall into which category. It is not easy to do. If I had sectional timing for all courses and all races, with all the times for all horses at all call points in a database or spreadsheet, that would be a tool that could do the job. However, sadly I do not have access to such data. If I had the time to watch the replays of all 3000 or so races in this sample, then that potentially could help in analysing my ideas (although it would be subjective). That though is not a sensible use of my time, even if I had all the time in the world! Hence, I needed to come up with a different plan, one that could hopefully do the job...

Methodology

So I came up with a plan which, while I appreciate is not foolproof, I think it gives us a good overview if nothing else - a flavour, if you will - of how pace affects these types of races.

Firstly, I decided to find the average pace rating for every single race in the sample. To do this I used the same numerical values found on Geegeez where led (early leader) gets 4 points, prominent 3, mid division 2 and held up 1. Hence to get the average pace rating for each race I added up the pace scores of all the runners and divided it by the total number of runners in the race. Let me give a worked example to help explain it more clearly.

Below is a result from Chelmsford over 6f from July 2023:

 

 

As we can see there were 10 runners, one early leader (L), two prominent racers (P), four horses that raced mid-division (M), and three that were held up (H). Hence the calculation is as follows:

 

 

Thus, if we add up the total points column, we get 21 and then we divide it by 10 runners to give us the average pace rating for that race:

 

 

I did this calculation for each race using some Excel wizardry and the averages ranged between a lowest pace average of 1.96 and the highest standing at 3.50. The vast majority of race averages landed between 2.10 and 2.90.

The reason for creating these race pace averages was to help determine how much pace there was in each race. The lower the average, the more horses would have been held up or raced in mid pack. Hence, there was likely to be far less pressure on the early leader. Higher race pace averages would see more horses contesting for the early lead and/or being on the heels of the leader(s).

Although I could not be 100% certain for every race, logic dictated - and my working assumption was - that lower pace race averages would conform to races where the early leader gets a soft or uncontested lead, while the higher averages would have a greater chance of producing races where the early pace might collapse. I decided for any run style or pace comparison from now on I was going to lump together the results for mid-division horses with hold up horses. This makes sense to me as mid-division horses still have plenty of ground to make up in order to win. From now on this joint group will be referred to as simply 'the hold-up group' – making it less of a mouthful than to keep calling it the hold-up/mid-division  group.

Having calculated the race pace averages I needed to decide on the best way was to interpret the results. The problem we always have with any pace/run style data is how to calculate win rates etc. It is not as simple as what proportion of races are won by early leaders compared to hold up horses. This is because, on average, there are far more horses that are held up compared with horses that lead early. In my example Chelmsford race, there was one front runner, four midfield and three held up horses.

Normally, I simply divide the number of winners to runners within each run style group but when I did this looking across different pace race averages, I realised we could not compare strike rates in that way. I won’t go into the mathematical reasoning as it is quite complicated to understand - and even more difficult to explain!

I decided the only way to have a fair comparison was to create a type of impact value where I divided the win percentage of leaders within their leaders’ group by the win percentage of hold up runners within their hold up group. I will call it the Comparison Strike Rate, or CSR for short.

This way I could get a straight comparison, with the idea being that the CSR figure would help to show any significant differences in performance (according to the relative strike rates). Hence a CSR of 2 would suggest that a lone front runner has double the chance of winning as compared to one of the hold up horses. [I have used this CSR idea before in two 2yo articles back in 2019.]

 

All Distances (5f-1m)

I split the race pace averages up into four groups where there was a similar number of races within each group. Here are the CSR splits:

 

 

Essentially, the 2.39 or less group are the races where it is more likely that a front runner got an uncontested lead; and we can see that front runners have been far more successful within their run style group than hold up runners have within theirs, winning 2.44 times as often.

Fast forward to the races with the highest race pace averages (the 2.68+ group) and we can see the CSR drops to 1.34. It is in these races, where there is the most pace in the race, that we would expect an overly fast early tempo - and the numbers back this up. Front runners do still have an edge, but it is vastly diminished. Therefore, it does seem that what pundits and punters have believed for years is true: front runners that get an uncontested lead win far more often than front runners that have horses pressing them for the lead or snapping at their heels.

What is also pleasing when looking at the graph is that not only do both ends of the spectrum match the expectation, but there is excellent correlation as the race pace averages increase (from left to right on the graph). This gives me more confidence in the findings and my initial theory.

Having found the types of patterns that I was hoping for I felt I wanted to dig deeper and split the data further by looking at different distances, starting with the minimum distance.

For the rest of this article though I am just going to compare the two ‘extremes’ – the races with the lowest race pace average band (2.39 or less) with races with the highest (2.68 or more).

5f handicaps

Anyone who has read my run style/pace articles over the years will know that 5f races give front runners the strongest edge when taking all courses into account. Hence, I would expect the CSR figures for both groups to be higher than the average figures for all 5f-1m races we saw in the first graph. I would also hope that we still see a significant differential between the two CSR figures.

Here is what I found:

 

 

As the graph shows, front runners had a CSR figure of 3.68 in races where the early leader got an easy time of it. This is well above the 5f-1m average figure of 2.44. In 5f handicaps when there was plenty of competition up or near the front early, front runners were still 2.27 times more likely to win than one of the hold up horses.

Ultimately, punters should not be put off backing a potential front runner in a 5f handicap even if there is likely to be a lot of pace on. They still have a decent edge and offer value. If the shape of the pace suggests an easy lead, then we can be even more confident of a good run from the horse that takes the early lead.

 

6f handicaps

Front runners maintain a healthy edge generally over 6f, but it is nowhere near as potent as it is over 5f. Hence, we should expect a drop in both CSR figures. Here are my findings:

 

 

In six-furlong races where there is less competition for the lead, we see a strong CSR figure of 2.76. Front runners continue to enjoy a huge edge over hold up horses. However, when we get to races over 6f where there is plenty of early pace and possible battles up front, we see the figure drop markedly to just 1.27. Front runners still offer better value than hold ups under such conditions, but the edge is small. 

 

7f-1m handicaps

I am lumping together 7f and 1m handicaps simply because once we hit 7f, although front runners still hold sway, the advantage is much diminished when compared to the stats at 6f and especially 5f contests. There are a handful of courses where over 7f front runners enjoy a very strong edge; Beverley, Chelmsford, Epsom, Leicester and Musselburgh immediately spring to mind. However, overall, it is a more even playing field. Let’s see what the CSR figures show this time:

 

 

Races where the pace average was 2.39 or less still favoured front runners more than those where the pace average was 2.68 or higher. However, both figures have dropped further from those we saw over 6f. This is as we would expect but it always good to have it confirmed in black and white, or in this case red.

I would like to share one final graph which combines the preceding trio of charts so we can perhaps more easily compare the CSR figures across the different distances / race pace averages:

 

 

Conclusions

So, what has this research told us? Well, assuming that my theory is correct in terms of races with a pace average of 2.39 or lower being races where the early leader has an easier time of it, and that those 2.68 or higher are when there is more competition for the lead, then theories about easy leads and pace collapses are almost certainly true. At least the numbers shared suggest this is the case in handicaps of 1m or less. Moreover, the shorter the distance the easier it seems for front runners with uncontested leads to win.

Before I finish, what I have done for my own peace of mind is to watch back some replays of races where the pace race averages were 2.39 or less, and virtually all races saw the early leader lacking strong competition for its lead. Likewise, I did the same for some races averaging 2.68 or more and a high percentage of those saw some very strong competition for the lead early. This adds some qualitative confidence that my race pace averages do the job I was hoping for.

I appreciate that, until the race has been run, we are unable to calculate the race pace averages. However, the Geegeez racecards give us past running styles for each horse to a maximum of their most recent four runs so this is a tool we can use to try and work up the likely pace make-up for any race in question.

There is plenty more scope for me to keep researching races with different pace make-ups. I do have data for non-handicaps up to 1 mile, as well as data at longer distances. I also could try to look at other angles within the 5f-1m handicap bracket. Ideas include do front runners with uncontested leads win more often in lower class races? That has some logic behind the theory so I may test that. I may also analyse different courses in more detail, and I might expand to try and find any positives or negatives regarding prominent racers across different race pace averages.

So many ideas, why are days only 24 hours in length?!

- DR

An Analysis of Place Betting on Betfair

/in /by

An Analysis of Place Betting on Betfair

One of the comments about an article I wrote a couple of months ago asked whether I could write an article on the subject of place betting on Betfair, writes Dave Renham. I have written around a thousand horse racing articles in my life and, consequently, have covered a fair few different topics; but I have never delved into the subject of place betting. So, thank you to Keith for requesting a piece on this subject.

This article covers ten full years of flat racing in the UK (2015 to 2024) across both turf and AW racing. All profits/losses are calculated to Betfair Place SP with 2% commission taken out. I have excluded races of 4 or fewer runners as only winners count under those circumstances.

Betfair Place SP: All Races

Overall, if we had bet every runner in every race in this ten-year time span to Betfair Place SP, we would have lost around 2.5 pence in the £. This is actually a smidge less than we would have lost if backing all horses to win. Let me split the BSP Place data up by individual year to see how it has panned out:

 

 

The worst yearly return was a loss of 4% in 2020, the best was a loss of 0.6% in 2022. For the record, the current figure for 2025, as of early July, is showing a loss of 2.2%. Looking at the graph, it could be argued that since 2021 betting on the Place market has offered punters better value than previously. Whether that has truly been the case, or the results are just down to variance, it is impossible to say.

Before moving on, I would like to point readers in the direction of an excellent and informative article written by Russell Clarke on here back in 2020. It explores each way betting with traditional bookmakers and, amongst many useful pointers, it highlights under what circumstances it is better value to bet each way. The link is here www.geegeez.co.uk/money-without-work-5-bookmaker-concessions-each-way-betting/

 

Betfair Place SP: Number of Runners

Having read that piece I wondered if there was a number of runners ‘edge’ we could find on the Betfair Place markets. Here is the breakdown of all races backing all runners across different field sizes:

 

 

Note that the fourth column, Place%, is different from traditional bookmaker place percent, because when there are non-runners that affect the number of placed positions, on Betfair this figure is not adjusted. Therefore, in a race with eight runners declared, if there was a non-runner, people betting with the bookmakers will see the number of places drop from three to two. On Betfair if an 8-runner race becomes a 7-runner one, they still pay three places. We could get 9-runner races having two non-runners and the same thing would happen. This is almost certainly why races with seven runners have almost broken even if betting all runners blind on the Betfair Place Market. Overall, 28.6% of runners in 7-runner contests would have paid two places with bookmakers, this figure increases to 35% on Betfair. And this is totally due to 7-runner races with non-runners paying out still on the extra place on Betfair. Now, of course, prices on the Betfair Place Market will contract a little under such circumstances but not enough it seems to give punters more chance of parity.

We see a similar thing occurring with 15-runner races. Losses are 1.12% for all 15-runner races, and more specifically for handicaps this drops further to 0.84%. Here we are seeing a similar dynamic where 16-runner handicaps that have one non-runner still pay four places on Betfair. Again, this scenario will occur in races with 17 runners declared and two non-runners, 18 declared and three non-runners, and so on. We can also see that 16-runner races have edged into profit. In terms of handicaps, it is not surprising perhaps to note, that races with 15 to 17 runners have offered the best value on the Betfair Place Market (losses of only 0.6% across all runners).

At this point it is worth sharing that non-handicaps with 12 or more runners have offered place betting Betfair players the worst value over the past ten years as losses move up from an overall average loss of 2.5% to a punishing 5.5%.

Betfair Place SP: By Course

I want to look at individual courses next to see if any patterns can be found. Firstly, let me look at the courses where placed runners did best in terms of returns:

 

 

I had wondered before starting this ‘course digging’ whether the bigger named tracks would produce better results. However, this is not the case with only Ascot and Newbury of the Grade 1 courses in the table. I’m not really seeing a pattern as yet so let me look at the worst performing courses from a Betfair place perspective:

 

 

No Grade 1 courses here, but a good mix of different calibre tracks with again no clear pattern. Sometimes we check ideas, and nothing can be found or indeed explained. That seems to be the case here.

 

Betfair Place SP: Actuall Odds

Moving swiftly on, one key area worth looking at is actual Betfair Place odds. I would hope this would give us some useful information. The graph below shows the Befair Place Returns to different BSP Place Odds Groupings:

 

 

Ahh! This is an extremely useful set of figures. The shorter BSP Place prices on the left of the graph have produced far better returns than the bigger priced groupings on the right. It seems that BSP Place prices of 5.0 or shorter gives punters the best chance of being profitable. Combining these runners at 5.0 or shorter would have seen us lose less than 1p in the £ for every £1 staked. Also, remember this is still sharing the data across all runners so we are talking about backing horses blind with no other considerations than price. We should be able to improve upon this with a bit of extra work.

Clearly, as with any BSP data be it win or place, we do not know the exact BSP price until the race has started, but as I have stated before betting seconds before the off will get us very similar results.

Betfair Place SP: Early Morning Odds to Opening Show Odds

I now would like to examine price movement based on William Hill prices in terms of Early Morning Odds to Opening Show Odds. The Early Morning Odds I've used are those available around 9am, while the Opening Show Odds occur roughly 10 minutes before race time. Does price movement between these time frames make any difference to the returns for placed runners? Let’s see:

 

 

Based on these figures, horses that shorten in price between Early Morning Odds and Opening Show Odds have provided the better returns. Still an overall loss as we would expect but only equating to just over one penny in the pound.

Digging a bit further with those horses that shortened in price from Early to Opening, if we restrict qualifiers to those that continued to shorten from Opening Odds to SP that would have produced a Betfair Place Profit of £213.09 from 68,778 qualifiers. Not a huge profit based on the number of qualifiers but a profit, nonetheless.

Betfair Place SP: Trainers

A look at trainers now, focusing first on the trainers with the highest placed percentages. Below are the top 20 in terms of place rank.

 

 

Nine of the 20 trainers have made profits in the Betfair Place Market. The Crisford stable have the best returns (an impressive 6.65% ROI), and they have had seven winning years out of ten. It should also be noted that their 3yo runners have returned over 10p in the £ if betting to BSP Place. Charlie Appleby’s figures are very solid when we drill down to the jockey data. There have been seven jockeys that have ridden 50 or more times for the stable and six have turned a place profit.

The Charlton stable on the other hand has very poor place returns. Betting their runners to place each year would have seen ten losing years out of ten. The Haggas stable has also struggled through this lens.

Other trainers to have made significant positive place returns over the past decade include Jane Chapple-Hyam (17% ROI), Grant Tuer (11% ROI), Bryan Smart (8% ROI), William Muir / Chris Grassick (7% ROI), and Paul and Oliver Cole (7% ROI).

Betfair Place SP: Trainers by Odds Band

I am now going to look at 75 trainers and their ROI Place Percentages across different Befair Place odds bands. The biggest place price in the table is 5.00, and I have split the prices into seven groupings. Figures in black show a positive return within that group, those in red show a negative return. The minimum number in each price band is 100 runners; if there a trainer saddled less than 100 runners in a price band the box is empty in the table:

 

 

You can pick out the detail of interest for yourself in this table, both positive and negative. But I will share a few personal observations to get you started:

C Appleby – we saw in the first table that he had shown a Betfair profit on his placed runners. In this table we perhaps see why, with five of the seven price bands turning a profit. His runners have offered the best value between place odds of 3.01 and 5.00.

R Beckett – all price bands have shown a negative ROI%. The 3.51 to 5.00 price band have shown the biggest losses.

Jane Chapple-Hyam – it was noted earlier that Jane Chapple-Hyam had secured a decent profit across all her runners on the place market. She had enough runners to qualify on six of the seven price bands and four showed a profit. For the record she showed good returns on bigger priced runners too.

H+R Charlton – seven reds out of seven. We saw earlier how poor the yard's place returns were overall.  This helps to explain why.

B Ellison – he has secured a positive ROI% in six of the seven price bands. Yard seems to offer solid value in the place markets.

J Goldie – some good stats especially with the shorter prices on the place market. Generally strong looking figures when horses are priced 3.50 or lower.

B Millman – five of the six bands to have enough runners have secured a profit for Millman. It should be noted however that his performance is poor once we get to prices of 6.5 or bigger.

G Tuer – as with Millman, Tuer has secured five profitable returns out of six. Tuer has also made significant returns with horses priced 9.00 or bigger on the place market.

I hope readers will get an opportunity to analyse the table in their own time and find further useful angles for other trainers.

------------------------

This has been my first foray into Betfair place betting, and I have been pleasantly surprised in terms of the overall stats. It's an area that certainly will demand more of my attention in future. Do please continue suggest any ideas for future place (or indeed other) articles in the comments. I can't guarantee to write to your specific request but, as this piece shows, if I feel there are sufficient data and angles then it'll get some focus.

- DR

Monday Musings: Deception

/in /by

There are funny camera angles for close finishes on a number of tracks, but until the past week or so, I’d never put Newmarket’s July Course into that category, writes Tony Stafford. Then, three times at least, as the horses flashed over the line, the apparent leader in the race to the line, was usurped by a horse or horses racing nearer the stands side.

It happened when the horse I was cheering for, William Knight’s Royal Velvet, had control of her two closest rivals in the final strides before the conclusion in a race the week before last. What happened next, the shot actually on the line, told a totally different story.

The same thing transpired on Friday when the £1.9 million yearling, Charlie Appleby debutant Distant Storm, appeared to have been outdone (on his outside) by Aidan O’Brien’s fellow newcomer Constitution River, but again the online camera left us in no doubt.

Then again on Saturday, in the Bunbury Cup, a 13-runner affair rather than the usual maximum 20, resolved in favour of William Haggas’ More Thunder, who also had a narrow margin to spare. We’ve often mused how often William Haggas goes into big-money handicaps with short-priced favourites. More Thunder was a 6/5 shot in a race where they often go maybe 6/1 the field.

That he should so narrowly get the better of the Ian Williams-trained Aalto, a 40/1 outsider, means no doubt the rise in his mark can be if not minimal, too little to prevent a follow up in another big money handicap.

Williams, also, is a terrific target trainer and he certainly had his eye on the money on offer this last week. His Oneforthegutter picked up Friday’s big prize, the bet365 Trophy over 1m6f, having judiciously employed stablemate Dancing In Paris, runner-up previously in the Northumberland Plate, to ensure a strong gallop.

William Knight isn’t slow to learn. Just a week after Royal Velvet’s near miss he brought out Suzy Hartley’s four-year-old filly again and this time William Buick kept the stands side route for her challenge, again looking less emphatic in the running than at the conclusion.

After being on the conventional side of the track on Friday, I switched to the marquee side – something of an oasis – on Saturday and the ‘on the eye’ view offered no confusion at all. Buick was well in control on Royal Velvet throughout the last half-furlong.

Talking about in control, Buick and his principal employer Charlie Appleby had a meeting to savour, with three apiece on each of the first two days and a concluding double on Saturday, meaning the jockey had three trebles.

The O’Brien / Appleby and Ryan Moore / Buick battles also came down in favour of the home team when Superlative Stakes favourite Italy was easily upstaged by Saba River, both colts coming on after comfortable debut wins.

It was always going to be Italy, in the race where we first saw the true potential of City of Troy two years ago, that would be favourite to justify his status; but Saba River got the stands run while his rival was pushed into the middle of the course. More surprising perhaps than the result was the 6/1 starting price of the winner, who was less than half that price in the morning.

The future progress of the two principals on those two juvenile events on successive days will be something to savour for the rest of the year.

It’s probably a little unkind to leave mention of the July Cup to this stage of the article, so apologies for Richard Hughes not to register the trainer’s first Group 1 win courtesy of the hard-working and obviously talented No Half Measures in the Pat Gallagher colours to confound his 66/1 starting price. The winner’s rating of 105 was 13lb below that of favourite – and last year’s 2,000 Guineas winer – Notable Speech, but he didn’t ever look like joining in the Godolphin win spree.

Ratings and handicap form are too often taken literally when assessing the top sprints, but with around 3lb to the length at 5f and 6f, any minor interruption to a horse’s progress can bring apparent no-hopers into the argument.

Given a peach of a ride by veteran Neil Callan, who said he was amazed how well he was going coming to the last furlong, No Half Measures had to pounce on Mick Appleby’s Big Mojo, a worthy successor to the stable’s Big Evs, and just outstayed his rival.

Pondering the race afterwards, Mick was anything but depressed. “I’m sure if it had been 5f or today’s trip over a less testing course, I’ve no doubt Big Mojo would have won. He’ll be very hard to beat in the Nunthorpe next month.”

As I said earlier, I watched the early races, though not the July Cup, from the other side of the track and counted in excess of 40 strides across the full width. Of course, with its busy summer programme, the track is divided in two but is still more than wide enough. For some reason though, in bigger fields they seem to cluster up and cause each other unnecessary difficulties as the action hots up.

Richard Hughes was a brilliant rider at the top level and while his training career until Saturday has had fewer top-end triumphs, it has been one of unfussed steady progression.

From his third season, in 2017, Hughesie has never fallen below 41 wins, and six times he has been between 50 and last year’s highest figure of 64. The big prize on Saturday pushed him comfortably over the £1 million prizemoney figure for the first time and it’s now four years in a row that he has set new personal scores in that regard.

It is very likely that at his present strike rate, the tally of 42 wins could reach 65 and bring another personal best for this man who, as the son of Dessie Hughes, the long term top Irish jump jockey and then trainer, he therefore was bred for the top.

It was fitting that Neil Callan, whose young son Jack has already ridden 16 winners, would be the vehicle to give Hughes his first Group 1 win. They also teamed up with Richard’s best previous win with Calling The Wild in the 2023 Northumberland Plate.

The three (so far) 2025 heatwaves have brought fitness difficulties for trainers at home in getting their horses onto grass gallops and facing fast ground at most tracks. Most years, trainers have been up in arms when rain has fallen on watered tracks causing wildly different conditions than were anticipated beforehand.

Among the moans about ground being too firm, there was always a strand of complaint, usually drowned out by the majority, saying that the fast ground horses that undoubtedly do exist, were being victimised.

At least this summer the fast-ground horses can enjoy a rare time when opportunities abound. Anyone with a garden – unless you have a hosepipe ban – will tell you that when you water your lawn, later the same afternoon it will have dried out again.

Similarly, if your horse is in the last race at a track where they have put some water on and you don’t want it too firm, hard luck. My already mentioned walk across the July Course posted as “watered, good to firm”, revealed a healthy cushion of grass. Some trainers I’ve been speaking to of late have been surprised to find that some of the horses they had marked down as needing soft ground, surprisingly have won races on firm. Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it, as they used to say.

- TS

Newmarket July Meeting: A Ten Year View

/in /by

Newmarket July Meeting – a look at the past 10 years

Later this week racing fans will enjoy the three-day Newmarket July Meeting, writes Dave Renham. Expect top quality action headlined by two Group 1s, the July Cup and the Falmouth Stakes, as well as four Group 2s. There will also be several decent handicaps to get stuck into. In this article I am going to look at stats for the most recent ten meetings going back to 2015. Profit / loss has been calculated to £1 level stakes using Betfair Starting Price (BSP), with 2% commission taken out of any winning selections.

Newmarket July Meeting: Market Rank (Exchange)

I would like to start by examining the betting market, more specifically the market rank of Betfair. Here are the splits:

 

 

It seems the sweet spot over the past decade was horses ranked third to fifth in betting preference. Favourites by contrast suffered fairly significant losses equating to more than 17 pence in the £. Splitting the favourite data into handicaps versus non-handicaps, it was handicaps that offered better results, albeit losses were still over 11p in the £. Losses in non-handicaps were over 23p in the £ for the jollies. Eye-watering stuff!

If we look at the Betfair A/E indices for Market Rank, we can see excellent correlation with the earlier table:

 

 

Horses ranked third to fifth in the betting have offered excellent value over the past ten years. It will be interesting to see if this pattern continues this year.

 

Newmarket July Meeting: Price movement

Now I want to look at price movement data comparing Early Morning Odds to final Starting Prices. I am going to share the win strike rates for horses that lengthened in price over the day, stayed the same price, and shortened in price.

 

 

Horses that shortened in price were the most successful, as is the norm, but the differential between ‘shorteners’ and those that drifted in price is huge. Horses that were backed over the day won more than 2.5 times more often than those that drifted. If we now look at the profit / loss for the three groups, based on their final BSP we see the following:

 

 

It seems that following the money would have been a good strategy over the past ten meetings. Despite the prices shortening, 'line trackers' still would have seen a 10p in the £ return to BSP on horses that were shorter prices at the off than they were in the morning.

There are two trainers in particular that were worth noting when the money was down: Andrew Balding and Ralph Beckett. Balding was 7 from 31 (SR 22.6%) with shorteners, just 2 from 28 (SR 7.1%) with drifters. Beckett meanwhile was 7 from 29 (SR 24.1%) with shorteners and just 1 from 21 (SR 4.8%) with drifters.

 

Newmarket July Meeting: Age in 3yo+ & 4yo+ races

Let me next look at the performance of different aged runners in races open to 3yos and over / 4yos and over. It should be noted that the vast majority (87% of them) were 3yo+ races. Here are the age splits:

 

 

This is illuminating. Three- and four-year olds have clearly outperformed their elders both from a win rate perspective as well as a profit / loss one. It looks like we can pretty much write off any horse aged seven or older based on these figures.

The contrast between younger and older has been strongest in non-handicaps where horses aged five or older have won just three times from 97 attempts (SR 3.1%) for losses of over 80 pence in the £. In handicaps three-year-olds fared extremely well as the graph for win strike rate below shows:

 

 

I would think the starting point for any all-age handicap would be the 3yos based on this data. It should be noted, too, that 3yos that shortened in price from Early Odds to SP in these races won over 24% for a healthy 18% ROI%.

Newmarket July Meeting : Recent form

Moving on to ‘last time out’ factors, let's start with recent form and the position the horse finished on their most recent start. Here is the breakdown:

 

 

 

It is unusual to see similar win rates for horses finishing first, second, third or fourth last time out (LTO). The LTO winners’ group made a BSP profit, but those figures are skewed somewhat by three decent priced winners – BSP 66.34, 50.0 and 40.0. All in all, I would not be paying too much heed to LTO performance as in the past, for this meeting at least, it has not been much of a guide.

Newmarket July Meeting: Course LTO

Another LTO factor is the course at which the horse ran last time. Below are the LTO courses that have provided at least 50 of the Newmarket July meeting runners:

 

 

A good chunk of the runners raced at Ascot last time, many of which were racing at the Royal meeting a few weeks previously. There were also a significant number of horses that raced at Newmarket LTO and these had the best record in terms of strike rate as well as delivering a fair profit. Sandown and York were the other two LTO courses to turn a profit here, and York’s figures look particularly solid. LTO York runners that started in the top three in the betting at the Newmarket July festival secured a 31% strike rate and returns of over 100p in the £. In contrast, the Newcastle and Windsor figures have been poor, and both have commensurately disappointing place percentages, too.

Newmarket July Meeting: Course form

Onto course form now and looking at the performance of past course winners compared to those that had not won at the track. To make this a fair comparison I will compare only horses that had already run at the track: clearly horses that were yet to run there could not have previously won! I am going to compare the win strike rates and the win & placed (Each Way) strike rates first:

 

 

It seems therefore that a previous course win is preferable both from a win and a place perspective. This is also reflected in the profit/loss and return columns in terms of win bets:

 

 

In terms of betting on the Place market on Betfair, there has been a big discrepancy there as well. Previous course winners produced a £38.41 profit to £1 level stakes; non-course winners lost £52.24.

With regards horses that raced at the course previously and had been placed before (includes winners of course), they too have a strong edge as these stats show:

 

 

Taking all these stats into account a previous win or placed effort at the track has been a definite positive at this meeting.

 

Newmarket July Meeting: Trainers

The final area I want to look at is trainers: which handlers have excelled at this meeting and which ones have found it a struggle? Only trainers with 30 runners or more are shown. As far as Charlie Johnston is concerned, I have combined his record with his father’s, Mark. The table is ordered by return on investment at Betfair Starting Price (BSP ROI).

 

 

Several trainers were in profit through the decade although Ralph Beckett, Michael Bell, Karl Burke and the Johnston stable's performance figures were boosted by a few bigger priced winners dropping in. Charlie Appleby, Andrew Balding, Richard Hannon, Aidan O’Brien and Saeed bin Suroor have more solid looking overall profiles and all five showed good profits with horses in the short to mid-price range.

There are a couple of extra stats worthy of note. Firstly, when William Buick rides for Appleby the strike rate has been a smidge under 30% for a 49p in the £ return. Secondly, Aidan O’Brien should be noted when any of his runners pivot from Royal Ascot. This cohort won 27% of the time for a 63p in the £ return.

The records of William Haggas, Charlie Hills, Hugo Palmer and Kevin Ryan have been poor, although Haggas has had plenty of near misses. Palmer and Hills have a poor record in terms of placed runners as well, and they may be two trainers worth avoiding at the fixture.

-----------

Newmarket July Meeting: Key Positives

The key positives are as follows:

  1. Horses third to fifth in the betting market
  2. Horses that shorten in price from Early Morning Odds to SP
  3. 3yos in 3yo+ handicaps
  4. Ran at Newmarket or York LTO
  5. Previous course form (both win and placed)
  6. Trainers - Appleby, Balding, Hannon, O’Brien and bin Suroor

-----------

 

I hope this piece has provided a few pointers that will prove useful over the three days of Newmarket's always excellent July meeting. Good luck to those punting, and don’t forget to use the Tix software if playing the Jackpot, Placepot, Scoop 6 or Quadpot.

- DR

 

Monday Musings: A Star Is Born

/in /by

A star is born. That’s right, another from that dastardly Aidan O’Brien nursery, especially if your name is Gosden anyway, writes Tony Stafford. I noticed John, the elder of that father-son combine, bravely smiling straight after his hotpot Ombudsman had been mugged close to home by Ryan Moore and Delacroix in the 50th edition of the Coral-Eclipse Stakes at Sandown Park on Saturday.

Coral had done a splendid promo job, obliterating the previous 90 years’ existence of a race that has always been the province of Classic-standard horses. You wouldn’t get Doncaster, for example, minimising the St Leger’s two centuries’ plus existence for the minor detail of this year’s sponsor.

The racecard on Saturday listed previous winners, from Wollow in 1976 to City Of Troy last year, and that caused me to a momentary – “he wasn’t”.

Surely Wollow I thought was earlier than that, but no of course it was Wollow’s sire, Wolver Hollow, both colts trained by Henry Cecil, that had won the race in 1969. The 1976 champion, Italian-owned, was ridden by Frankie’s father, Gianfranco.

As me and my friend Dick McGinn, who sadly died of cancer a few years ago in Australia after emigrating there, waited at home to see the superb mare Park Top we thought would win that 1969 race, when along came Wolver Hollow and Lester Piggott to give the future Sir Henry his first big win. It was also my final losing bet as a single man – at that stage!

Everyone, including my parents, were already in place as best man Dick and I quickly left the house and sprinted down to St John-at-Hackney Church for my wedding. On arrival, as he searched his pockets for the ring, we learnt that the bridal car was on its third circuit! Sorry dear, better late than never!

I got rather excited last week about a ride in a handicap chase at Uttoxeter. Many were equally enthralled by Ryan Moore’s performance on Delacroix, whose chance coming to the furlong pole looked so remote that one exchange punter managed to secure £2 at 330/1!

But the last furlong at Sandown can seem almost as far as not-yet-forgotten Towcester where a ten-length lead over the last fence wouldn’t guarantee success up its Himalaya-like gradient. Sandown isn’t so steep, but when they’ve gone a solid pace and set out for home early enough, as William Buick did on impressive Royal Ascot winner Ombudsman, that can often be a recipe for disappointment.

While not disagreeing with the general view of Ryan’s latest Group 1 masterclass, he did have a more than willing ally in Delacroix. Neither jockey nor trainer seemed to have expected the sudden burst of speed he unleashed from 150 yards out, when coming from last in what seemed like a flash.

He certainly did flash home, passing all five opponents, including Classic winners Ruling Court (Charlie Appleby, 2,000 Guineas), and his stablemate Camille Pissarro (Prix du Jockey Club) in that final half-furlong. His display in the winner’s enclosure when he promised either to trample or squeeze into the rails anyone silly enough to get on the smaller than usual line in the winner’s photo, suggested he had the energy to have gone round again.

Reduced to an onlooker in the Derby after a troubled run as the race panned into another O’Brien/Coolmore colt in Lambourn’s favour - and that horse lost nothing in reputation by following up at the Curragh – now the more lucrative ten-furlong route for a future stallion is wide open for Delacroix.

The Gosdens and their other big owning connection, Juddmonte, could have taken Irish Guineas and superb St James’s Palace winner Field Of Gold to the Sandown race, but that superb grey colt is firmly on target and odds-on for the Sussex Stakes next month at Goodwood.

Then it will be off to York for the Juddmonte should all go to plan close to the Solent and another of those long sponsorships, at York, where the Juddmonte International will have a massive place in their affections. Watch out, that’s where they will undoubtedly be encountering Delacroix.

Who knows? Just a year on from City Of Troy’s disappointing showing in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, by November time, Delacroix might have forced his way into earning a similar challenge and finally win the race for O’Brien. It’s 25 years if you can believe it since the Iron Horse, Aidan’s 2000 Coral-Eclipse winner Giant’s Causeway, agonisingly failed by only a neck to hold off Tiznow at Churchill Downs.

These days, the old “keeping themselves to their own” breeding policy between Coolmore and Godolphin is no more. According to my chosen source of record, Delacroix is one of ten produce of Godolphin’s prime stallion Dubawi among the Ballydoyle three-year-old division and there are also 13 juveniles. His dam is the champion international miler Tepin, making him a fantastic out cross for all those Galileo mares.

Delacroix’s success will make this autumn’s auctions for his yearlings even more a competition between the two prime powers in racing, although of course Godolphin has all the home-breds of Dubawi it wants.

To counterbalance that, Coolmore’s star, the 300k a pop Wootton Bassett has five representatives among Charlie Appleby’s team of juveniles, but none of the Classic generation. The former French-based sire hadn’t yet announced his true talent before switching to Ireland for the 2022 breeding season.

Meanwhile, the principal Godolphin buying team of Anthony Stroud and David Loder will equally be scanning the sales to see which of the Wootton Bassetts is to be targeted. Loder, I heard from Charlie Appleby on Saturday, has had some successful surgery on his eyes and he’ll be seeing them coming, according to Charlie, from a mile off!

Sandown otherwise had a nice, varied programme backing up the big race and it was only by a neck that William Knight’s nine-year-old Sir Busker failed to match Delacroix’s last to first effort with a flying second at 22/1 in the finale. In his case there were seven horses to pass from last place a furlong from home, but as Brandon Wilkie brought him wide with that rattling finish, they were just foiled by the James Tate-trained Flying Frontier, whose trainer was quizzed afterwards.

Stewards habitually want to know why horses run better than expected, perform worse than expected or are beaten favourites. That’s racing, gents or ladies. I know that Kennet Valley Thoroughbreds’ syndicate owners of Sir Busker have had seven wins including at Royal Ascot, from 58 runs and 660k in earnings.

His later career was hampered by a freak injury when turf flicked up into an eye at Meydan but he came back as bravely as ever and can be a force in these handicaps for a while longer. I would hope the handicapper refrains from raising his mark above 100 once more, but sentiment isn’t much part of their make-up.

Dubawi is also the sire of another of Saturday’s winners, the Richard Hannon-trained Classic, running in the colours of Mrs Julie Wood. He won a £63k handicap in great style earlier on the card, making all under Sean Levey.

Mrs Wood normally recruits her horses in foal sales, but made an exception with Classic, sold as a yearling by Newsells Park Stud for 260,000gns, a price she would never expect to pay for a foal. On the way he won on Saturday there will be much more to come from him.

- TS

Roving Reports: A Royal Debrief

/in /by

Ask anyone how their Royal Ascot 2025 was and you’ll pretty much get the same answer, writes David Massey. Hot. It was hot. Hot and sticky. Humid and sticky. Hot, and humid, and sticky. Perm any two from three, basically. We’ll come to that in a while but there’s no sign of that heat in my lovely air-conditioned car as I drive down to Windsor on Monday.

I go at 11am, to try and arrive around half three and meet up with Jason at our digs for the week. We’re staying near Bracknell, at Harman’s Water, which sounds like something you might treat with antibiotics. Having lost two Ascot Airbnb’s in the past couple of months (“twirled”, in bookmaking parlance - you book it early, then nearer the time you’re informed there’s a problem with your house, often something spurious and you know EXACTLY what’s actually happened, you’ve been gazumped by someone offering more money) we’re grateful to have somewhere to stay.

I arrive five minutes before Jason does and get the keys from the lockbox outside. Having opened the door and put the keys on the kitchen side, I start getting my gear in. There’s a room with two single beds which I’ll happily have, then Jason arrives. He starts getting his stuff in too, but as he goes to get his second lot of stuff, closes the door behind him.

It locks automatically.

I look at Jason and Jason looks at me, not realising what he’s done. Panic sets in as I try the door; it won’t open. I can see the keys on the kitchen side through the window but it’s no use, we’re stuffed. It’s taken us precisely four minutes to make our first error of the week.

Jason rings the property owner. He lives in Essex, it turns out, so can’t exactly drop the spare keys off, but he has someone local that does have a spare set. Unfortunately for us, he’s uncontactable until after 6pm, so there’s nothing we can do at this point except head down to Windsor, and get the keys later.

Windsor is full of bookmakers on a jolly night out, and I’m doing the Trackside service for a select few that have taken it for the evening. It’s nice to catch up with a few familiar faces I haven’t seen for a while, including a couple from abroad who come here for the week. This is the first time I’ve not worked for a bookmaker on Ascot week, choosing instead to help Vicki run Trackside. She’s more than capable of doing it on her own, in truth, but the bigger handicaps could use a helping hand, plus she’s other bits and pieces to write up and when that happens I can take over for a while. Come the winter and I’ll be more in the driving seat but Vicki steers on the level.

Having got the keys back (and this time split them up, one now safely attached to my keyring) we get into the digs properly and have a look round. It’s a pretty sparse Airbnb, there’s not much here. Neither has the back grass been cut for a few months. It’s the bare minimum of crockery in the cupboards, there’s hardly a mirror in the place, the TV doesn’t appear to have had any channels loaded onto it. There’s not even a toaster. The lamps in the bedrooms are the flimsiest of things that would go over in a good gust of wind; essentially, this is a student house with four bedrooms.

Thankfully I’ve brought my own fan down which I purchased only that morning from Argos and that at least enables me to get a decent night’s sleep. (It’ll turn out to be the best thirty quid I spend all week.)

The heat is already rising as I drive into Ascot on Tuesday. I try to arrive for around half eight - as many of you know, my first piece of work needs to be in by around half nine for the Life each day, and before that there’s the morning chat with Mr Delargy. It ought to take ten minutes but we’ll inevitably get sidetracked by something else and lose the thread at some point. I’m working in the middle of the track, in the media marquee near the winning post. It at least has a couple of air conditioning units, but is, in the words of one of the bookies reps, “like working in a massive cannabis farm.” I know what he means, not from personal experience you understand. I’ve also access, this year, to the media centre, which is by the paddock. I decide to give that a go Tuesday afternoon, but after a few hours in there, packed in like sardines in thirty degree heat, I decide the cannabis farm, rather than a sauna for battery chickens, is the better option for the rest of the week.

Those that read the Trackside columns will know I’ve been banging on about Docklands winning the Queen Anne since the Diomed, and he gets a right roar from me as he prevails by the narrowest of margins. It might only be race 1, day 1, but that almost ensures a decent Royal Ascot for your scribe, having backed it ante-post as well. I celebrate with a bottle of sparkling water. (Even by this point, those poor lads and lasses that are constantly restocking the fridges with water for us have given up trying to make it look neat by taking it out the plastic outer casing, preferring instead to throw packs of 24 in there and let us fight like caged tigers for them. It isn’t pretty, but it’s effective.)

Each day, before the Royal Parade arrives, you have to decide where you want to be, because at around 1.50 everything gets locked down, all gates are closed, and you have to stay where you are for about 30 minutes. Needless to say, I disappear off to the pre-parade ring nice and early each day, for two reasons; one, it’s obviously the best place for a first glance of the horses as they come in, and two, and arguably more importantly this week, there’s a lot of shade to hide away in up there. On the Thursday I’ve gone particularly early, around 1.20, well over an hour before the first, and unsurprisingly there’s nobody around. I’ve the pre-parade ring to myself until, from nowhere, a sunglasses-wearing figure appears, on his own. It’s Aidan O’Brien.

Aidan, as meticulous as he is, comes up each day to check the box he uses is spot on, that there’s water there for the staff, that everything is in its place. And here’s my chance to say hello to greatness himself. He finishes off his little jobs and walks toward where I’m standing. I wish him well for the day, and that he has luck on his side (like he needs it…). He puts his hand on my shoulder, thanks me for my kindness, and shakes my hand. I’m never washing this hand again. Charles Darwin then goes and wins the Norfolk, and clearly my wishing him luck played a huge part in that. Clearly.

That stay-where-you-are Royal Parade policy creates havoc for a couple of days. Some trainers and owners are caught behind a gate next to the pre-parade ring and aren’t being released as the horses go through to the parade ring. There’s a lot of angry trainers that want to be with their horses but the gate staff stand firm. Once released, it creates a huge bottleneck of connections trying to get into the parade ring (you have to use the walkway, not the horsewalk) and many trainers and owners simply give up, and use the horsewalk instead. The sight of just one attendant, arms spread wide open, trying to turn back a mob, Canute-like, has to be one of the most comedic images of the week. By Thursday this policy has been relaxed, and rightly so.

More on our digs. Rob, the bookmaker I’m staying with this week, comes back on Tuesday night. Let me add, at this point, Rob, and his partner Vanessa, who will be joining us later in the week, were in Vegas the previous week, staying at the Venetian. Now, it’s fair to say our digs are more menace than Venice, but Rob’s main concern is that he can’t find the remote for the telly. I tell him it’s a waste of time, as there’s no terrestrial channels on it, but he hunts down the remote, and finds a film on Netflix to watch instead. He’s asleep within ten minutes of putting it on. Rob can just about stomach the house - “it’s a bit basic, isn’t it?” - but I can’t wait to see what Vanessa makes of it. She’s going to hit the roof when she gets here on Thursday. I’m off to bed at ten, but the fan doesn’t work. It worked perfectly well last night, so what’s the issue? I have a look at the plug and only have to touch it to hear the whole socket fizzing and buzzing. Yep, the socket’s knackered. Add that to the ever-growing list of grumbles with this place.

I’ve already had a catch-up with my Australian bookmaker friend Erin, who comes over for Ascot each year to stand with the Rob Waterhouse crew, but that doesn’t stop me finding her again on Thursday. We have a good chat about the differences between British and Aussie bookmakers, which I always find interesting, before she asks me if I know anyone that might have some change going spare? They’ve already eaten into their stash. I hunt around and come up with a couple of hundred quids' worth, with the promise of some more tomorrow and Saturday if they need it. Erin, very grateful, promises me dinner next year as a thank you. Dinner with a gorgeous young lady, you say? It’s already in the diary, set in stone.

Back to some of the racing. Merchant is another nice winner for me on the week (and how good does that form look after runner-up Serious Contender pushed Lambourn all the way in the Irish Derby at the weekend) and Trawlerman, well, plenty of you probably saw the video I did with a certain Simon Nott that morning. I thought he was the bet of the week, and so it proved. Ascot is normally a tough week for me, but I’m nicely in front, and so it seems are most of the punters on the Thursday, with the bookmakers having to be carried out on stretchers after five winning favourites on the day. “Black armbands, gentleman”, as one bookie is heard to remark as he leaves the track.

Thursday night, and with Liam and Heather, who will be working for Rob the next two days, joining myself and Rob in the digs, they all decide to go down the pub to eat, whereas I’ve work to do, and have bought myself a microwave meal for one from Morrisons. (One of the many, many joys of working on the road.) I’m beavering away when the phone goes. It’s Rob, in the pub.

“Vanessa’s just arrived, but she says she can’t find the house. Can you ring her and direct her in?”. I’ve just realised - the crafty sods have all disappeared down the pub to leave me with Vanessa’s ire. I ring Vanessa and she’s just in the wrong part of the street. She parks up, gets out the car, looks at the unkempt garden and before I even get a hello, she looks at me and says one word. “Pi**hole.”

I just burst out laughing, as there’s no other reaction at this point. She rings Rob. “You’d better bring some wine back. And good wine, nothing cheap.” Vanessa is, let’s go with underwhelmed, with the place. I love Vanessa to bits, she’s actually from my neck of the woods and so we (literally) have some common ground between us, but I don’t think she’s in a particularly talkative mood at present! I leave her to explore the rest of the house, which takes her all of ten minutes.

Friday, and the heat reaches unbearable. I’d brought two suits along, thinking I’d change into the lighter linen one today, but that idea was abandoned after a day. However, I’m in the pre-parade ring when a fashion faux-pas is pointed out by photographer Debbie. I’ve had this suit three years now and never noticed the flaps are stitched together at the back. “They need releasing”, she says, “you’ll notice the benefits then.” She’s right, and after a bit of cutting using my keys, the airflow around my back is so much better. Three years, and I’ve never noticed. I’m a bit thick like that, sometimes. I can go into minute detail over a 0-100 handicap at Worcester but not spot two flaps stitched together that ought not to be for three years. My brain, like most men's brains, are wired up differently/wrongly (take your pick).

To top the week off, I’ve been playing low six/high six in the big straight-track handicaps all week, just for buttons, to see how I’d come out at the end of the week. By that I mean the lowest six drawn and the highest six drawn, just in case there’s a track bias. High draws seemed in charge for a day or two but that appears to have swung back a little, and when I hit 5p’s worth of the 11k trifecta in the Sandringham, it’ll ensure the best Ascot I’ve had for many a year. It’s almost worth putting up with the unbearable weather.

Friday night is fish’n’chip night at the digs, only when the food arrives we realise this place is not just short of crockery, but cutlery as well. There’s four of us (Liam has disappeared off to the pub to watch the rugby) and this place has - wait for it - only two forks. Thankfully Rob has some plastic cutlery in the van which saves the day, but the lack of utensils tips Vanessa over the edge again, and the not-cheap wine makes a reappearance. After food, Rob puts a film on and falls asleep (after the obligatory ten minutes) and myself, Vanessa and Heather get a pack of cards out. We teach Heather how to play rummy, and she learns quick, winning six of ten hands we play that night. This is actually the most relaxed we’ve been in this place since we got here. Maybe the wine (and my beer) has something to do with it. Or maybe it’s because we’re going home tomorrow.

Saturday, finally. Time to bid adieu, but not before the stifling weather has one more say. We pack up and leave the digs, vowing never to come anywhere near the place again (I think Vanessa has just about stopped short of torching it) and it’s by far my worst punting day of the week, giving a bit of the winnings back. I don’t have enough on the one success I do have, concentrating on the Wokingham instead, and get nowhere near the winner, or indeed places, and the exotics are a waste of time. Don’t worry, we can get it (or should that be Get It?) back on the Stewards Cup when Holkham Bay wins.

And that’s what’s next, Glorious Goodwood. Last year, we sweltered in the heat there, too. The highlight of that week was a dip in the sea at Bognor Regis. God, that felt good. It’s bound to rain this year, isn’t it?

See you all there.

- DM

How to Use Tix for Multi-Race (Placepot) Bets

/in , /by

Using Tix for Jackpots, Placepots, Quadpots & the Scoop 6, primarily focusing on Placepots

Geegeez readers should by now be aware of the online software called Tix, which Matt built in conjunction with the developer who built much of the coding for the original geegeez.co.uk racecards and form tools, writes Dave Renham. The Tix software is designed to be used for tote multi-race pool bets such as the Jackpot, Placepot, Quadpot and Scoop 6. It enables punters to produce more sophisticated and strategic permutations than the bog-standard perm approaches most punters use.

Tote Bets: A Quick Intro

Before discussing the software, it should be noted that the Tote take a percentage out of any final pool, the amount depending on the bet. Below is a table showing the percentage take-outs for the main pool bets:

 

Pool bet Percentage taken out
Jackpot 29%
Placepot 27%
Quadpot 26%
Scoop 6 30%

As we can see they are all in the same ballpark. If we consider the Placepot, therefore, if 27% is taken out that leaves 73% of the original pool being shared between winners.

To help understand the maths, here is an example. For a final total of £100,000 bet into a particular Placepot pool where there was £200 remaining at the end of the six races, the dividend would be worked out thus:

£100,000 x 73% = £73,000

£73,000 divided by 200 = £365

£365 is the dividend is to a £1 stake.

The lure of Placepots and Jackpots is the chance of a big payout for relatively small outlays. Personally, I have never regularly played the Jackpot but play plenty of Placepots. I’ve been fortunate enough to have enjoyed some reasonable wins, and one very big win, but of course there have been many occasions when I have lost all of my stake. As far as this article is concerned, I am going to focus on using Tix for Placepots, because it is the most commonly played of the tote multi-race bets.

Playing Placepots the Traditional Way

Let's first look at how we could play these pool bets without the aid of Tix.

One line 'Hail Mary'

The first method is to simply pick one horse in each race. In a Placepot, there are six legs and so that would be six horses. In order to win a share of the Placepot all six must either win or place. This would be the case even if we pick six favourites. For those wanting to put the favourite in as the only selection in each of the six races, this is possible because there is a Placepot option to back the unnamed favourite.

Tthere are plenty of races where the market is quite tight at the top and we would be guessing which horse is sent off favourite, so for ‘favourite’ fans this is a useful option. However, the chance of all six favourites winning or placing is surprisingly rare. Indeed, looking at the 177 flat race meetings held in the UK in April and May of this year only 13 times did six favourites win or place in each of the first six races on the card.

However, that did not mean there would have been 13 theoretical winning Placepots for favourite only backers. This is because three of these 13 did not count due to a situation where a joint favourite won or placed, but the other joint favourite did not. When this happens there can only be one horse deemed to be favourite so the horse with the lowest racecard number becomes the favourite for pool bet purposes. Hence, if we had gone down the unnamed favourite Placepot route in April and May we would have had 177 Placepots bets of which 10 won.

The problem with all favourites placing is that the dividend tends to be very low when this happens, and that was the case with all ten dividends as the table below shows:

 

Date Course Dividend to £1 stake
7th April 2025 Kempton £6.20
12th April 2025 Brighton £12.40
12th April 2025 Thirsk £8.00
1st May 2025 Redcar £11.50
3rd May 2025 Goodwood £9.90
5th May 2025 Windsor £10.50
9th May 2025 Nottingham £7.30
21st May 2025 Chepstow £13.20
23rd May 2025 Goodwood £5.90
26th May 2025 Windsor £8.00

 

If we had placed let’s say a £2 bet on each of the 177 Placepots our outlay would have been £354. Our returns would have been £185.80 showing a LOSS of £168.20. Ouch!

Favourites obviously command the most amount of money wagered in Placepots which is why, when all six win or place, the dividends are so low. Interestingly, there were two meetings in April and May where no favourites placed in any of the six races – the dividends for these meetings were somewhat different.

 

Date Course Dividend to £1 stake
19th April 2025 Musselburgh £1954.50
31st May 2025 Lingfield £4022

 

The '2x2'

For seasoned Placepot players selecting a single horse in each race is not a credible strategy. In the period discussed we have seen that putting the favourite as the only selection in each race secured a winning Placepot less than 6% of the time, and delivered significant losses.

An alternative and more popular approach is to choose two horses in each race giving players more coverage. We call this a permutation, or perm. If we choose two horses per race rather than one, the number of bets or lines goes up drastically from one to 64 because we multiply the number of selections per race to get the total number of selections.

1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 while 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 64

Take three horses per race and we are looking at 729 bets or lines.

Obviously, the chances of winning part of the pot increase but the more bets/lines we have the more we are staking, which will have an impact on any final returns.

Variable perms

To try and reduce the number of perms, some Placepot players vary the number of horses chosen for each race. Hence, they may have a couple of races where they choose just one horse – a so called ‘banker’; perhaps they have three horses in two of the other races, and five in each of the final two races.

In this scenario the number of bets or lines would be calculated 1 x 1 x 3 x 3 x 5 x 5 which equals 225 bets. This idea covers 18 horses in total (the same as the three horses in every race perm) but cuts the number of bets/lines down considerably.

Thus, varying the number of horses chosen per race is the most sensible method discussed to date; but it is time to talk Tix and a more sophisticated approach to adjusting the Placepot perms.

Introducing Tix

The Tix software allows us to use what is known as the ‘ABCX’ approach. This approach essentially allows players to group horses by order of confidence / perceived chance. In terms of a Placepot the thinking would be along these sorts of lines (or at least this is the way I think!) -

 

A Horses – horses that I believe are genuine contenders to win or place; or horses that I perceive to be overpriced within the mid-range of prices such as a 10/1 shot that I think ought to be 5/1, or a 12/1 shot that is 6/1 on my reading of the race.

B Horses – the next best options that we can make a case for especially if one or more of the A contenders underperform.

C Horses – horses that are unlikely to win but have some chance of placing. An example may be a horse overpriced at 33/1 we perceive should half that price at least. Or a less fancied horse well drawn over a course and distance that has a strong bias.

X Horses – horses that are excluded from calculations as their win or place chance seems extremely unlikely or I feel they are significantly over-factored in the market.

 

For Placepots my preferred approach is to have more A’s than B’s and maybe one or two C’s. However, for bigger meetings such as Royal Ascot, I tend to load up on A’s and have more C’s than B’s. I am sure others will have alternative approaches that may well be better than mine. Hopefully the more I use the software the more I can finesse my methods.

In terms of the Tix software the A horses will occur in more bets/lines than the B’s that in turn occur in more bets/lines than the C’s. The table below shows all the possible combinations or perms for each individual Placepot ticket – I have colour coded them to help make it clearer. A rated selections are in red, B are in black and C are in green.

 

 

This way of combining the horses is far more efficient and a lot cheaper! The way Tix is designed is that we can have a maximum of 28 individual tickets and this only occurs if we pick at least one horse in each of A, B and C positions in every race - as per the image above.

Tix Selection Flexibility

Keeping to the ‘three horses in a race scenario’, here are total number of bets/lines based on the Tix options, assuming we keep to the same combination for all six races. It includes the two I have already shared:

 

Combos All 3 on A 2 on A, 1 on B 2 on A, 1 on C 1A, 1B, 1C 1 on A,  2 on B 1 on A, 2 on C
Total Bets 729 496 256 28 73 13

 

The table shows the flexibility of the Tix software in terms of being able to offer various ‘number of bet’ scenarios, and remember, these example numbers are based on choosing the same A, B and/or C combination for all six races. Assuming we wanted to put three horses into each race we of course could choose a different three-way combination for each race such as:

 

Race no. Column A (no. of selections) Column B (no. of selections) Column C (no. of selections) Total no. of horses in race
1 2 1 0 3
2 1 1 1 3
3 1 2 0 3
4 3 0 0 3
5 1 0 2 3
6 2 0 1 3

 

This particular Tix construction of three horses per race would equate to 138 lines. It would take several pages to list all possible Tix bet constructions of three horses in each of the six races, so I’ll spare readers that! On the Tix site, our ticket with this type of perm/construction would potentially look something like this:

 

 

To be clear, the green column is for A picks, the yellow is for B picks, and C picks are in the right hand sandy coloured column. And these numbers in the specific columns would give us the following ten tickets:

 

 

As we can see, for this example there are ten specific groupings (tickets), and we would need at least one of those of ten groupings to have a win or placed horse in each of the six races to get a return. Of course, we may achieve a return that is less than our original stake, so six ‘win or placers’ on one of the tickets does not guarantee a profit.

If all eighteen horses manage to place then we probably would be dreaming but in that unlikely scenario these ten specific groupings/tickets would combine to have all 138 bets/lines as winning ones.

Tix Staking Flexibility

So, one of the brilliant parts about using Tix is this selection flexibility. A further feature in terms of flexibility is that we can adjust our stakes in terms of the four main groupings. This is the default position with the same stakes on each:

 

 

However, anyone who has seen Matt post his Tix selections on the site (like he did brilliantly at Royal Ascot 2025, I might say) will know he has a favoured strategy thus:

 

- All A's: 4x unit stake

- Five A's with one B pick: 3x unit stake

- Four A's with two B picks: 2x unit stake

- Five A's with one C pick: 1x unit stake

 

Using the ‘Matt Method’ we would simply tick the relevant boxes thus:

 

 

Using the example of my ten tickets shared above, this means ticket 1 (all A's) has a 4x amplification, tickets 2 to 4 (any 5 A's with 1 B) are 3x unit stake, tickets 5 to 7 (any 4 A's with 2 B's) are 2x normal stakes, and tickets 8 to 10 (any 5 A's with 1 C) are 1x stakes.

Of course, this stake amplification on certain tickets will increase the overall outlay but we're pressing up our strongest opinions whilst mixing in some 'big dividend' prospects.

In this specific example based on an original 1p per bet/line, and having no increase in stakes (so betting all lines with the same stake of 1p), it would cost £1.38.

Using the 4-3-2-1 Matt method would increase stakes to £3.00. The reasoning behind Matt’s staking plan is logical. The A horses are more likely to win or place than the Bs, who in turn should outperform the Cs. Hence the all-A column should have the highest stake, the 5A 1B column should come next and so on.

This staking method is one option, possibly the best one; obviously there are plenty of others that could be used. Also, at this point, it should be noted there is another way to adjust our stakes. We can adjust individual tickets by clicking on the ‘stake’ box at the bottom of each ticket and changing the default stake.

 

 

For those readers who have yet to use Tix, how to use the software is specific to each individual. Some I’m sure will not adjust stakes, some will. Some will load up with A’s, some may spread their horses more evenly. However, it is important to appreciate that each race meeting is different, and we are likely to play a Placepot at Carlisle with very few runners on the card differently to one at Royal Ascot where field sizes are much bigger and very competitive.

Wider Coverage

Thinking of the bigger meetings like Royal Ascot with their huge and competitive fields, it is likely that there will be an increase in the number of horses that will be used in our placepots. Earlier I looked at an imaginary three horses per race scenario sharing how placing them in different columns affected the total number of lines. Now let's look at the same idea using four horses per race (24 horses in total). Again, I have assumed that we have split the horses into the same columns for each race. Obviously placing four horses in the exact same columns for each of the six races is something that in practice we would almost definitely not do, but my reasoning is two-fold. Firstly, it is easy for me to calculate and share the total number of bets for each grouping. And secondly it gives us a decent understanding of the ‘number of total bets’ differences we can get using this flexible software:

 

Combos All 4 on A 3 on A, 1 on B 3 on A, 1 on C 2 on A, 2 on B 2 on A,  2 on C
Total Bets 4096 3402 2187 1408 448
Combos 2 on A, 1 on B, 1 on C 1 on A,  3 on B 1 on A, 2 on B, 1 on C 1 on A, 1 on B, 2 on C 1 on A, 3 on C
Total Bets 688 154 79 34 19

 

We can see that if selecting all 24 horses in the A column (four in each race) the number of bets/lines is a massive 4096. However, when we spread them more evenly but keep mostly A’s, such as a 2A, 1B and 1C scenario for each race, this cuts the bets/lines down to 688.

As I mentioned earlier for ease of calculations, I have assumed that each race has the same A, B, C combo or grouping. But, of course, Tix players will play each race according to its make-up. Considerations will be affected by the number of runners, the individual strengths of the runners, the relative prices of those runners, etc. For example, a three-runner race with a 1/12 favourite could see us choose that favourite on A as a stand-alone banker. A three-runner race where all three horses are priced between 13/8 and 2/1 may mean we choose all three in the A column. Only one of them will count in a final Placepot dividend while the other two will be losers and all lines involving those two will ‘die’.

Example Tix Play: Royal Ascot

I now want to share my Tuesday Placepot at Royal Ascot this year and how I played it using Tix. In terms of staking, I didn’t use Matt’s 4-3-2-1 method, I simply kept to the same 1p stakes per ticket.

Leg 1 - Queen Anne Stakes:

This was the race I previewed for Geegeez on the Tuesday and happily my two selections came first and second. The winner, Docklands, returned 14/1 (backed in from 25/1) so that was a good start to the week on an individual punting front. The runner up Rosallion was favourite and pre-race I was tempted to leave him as the stand-alone ‘A’ selection in my Placepot; but the race did have a very competitive look about it. So I played safe taking five selections across two columns. I also split Rosallion and Docklands up putting Docklands on C – silly me as that turned out.

Leg 1 selections

A – numbers 4 and 10

C  - numbers 3, 5 and 6

Horses that won/placed: one A, and one C

 

Leg 2 - Coventry Stakes:

These 2yo races with loads of runners and little form are the ones I fear most in Placepots with only three places available (and so it proved here). I went big trying to cover as many bases as possible with four A’s and four C’s:

A – numbers 1, 2, 13 and 20

C  - numbers 8, 9, 11 and 17

Horses that won/placed: one C

This was frustrating from the point of view that two of my A selections finished fourth and fifth. On the flip side, I was still in the pot with one of my C’s placing, and two of the placers were 66/1 and 80/1 meaning very few tickets had those runners on them.

Having played just A’s and C’s I was now needing at least one A horse to win or place in the final four races.

 

Leg 3 - King Charles III Stakes:

This was another horrible race with 23 runners and only three places up for grabs. My only strong opinion on the race was that American Affair was overpriced and I was happy for that to be one of my A’s. I went four A’s and two C’s. American Affair won.

A – numbers 1, 7, 14 and 16

C  - numbers 3 and 12

Horses that won/placed: two A’s

 

Leg 4 - St James's Palace Stakes:

Although there were only two places available in this seven-runner race, there were four rags and an odds-on fav in Field Of Gold. I had him and Henri Matisse as my A’s. No need for any ‘C’ cover.

A – numbers 1, 3

Horses that won/placed: two A’s

 

Leg 5 - Ascot Stakes:

There were two at a price I liked here in Nurburgring and Ascending. I decided to split them with Nurburgring on A and Ascending on C. I put one of the well fancied Mullins pair on A and what I hoped was another live outsider on C.

A – numbers 13 and 20

C  - numbers 3 and 9

Horses that won/placed: one A, and one C

Ascending beat Nurburgring for a £665 exacta (and no I didn’t have it!). At least I had one A selection that counted so was still in the Placepot game with one to play.

 

Leg 6 - Wolferton Stakes:

With no eventual non-runners this 16-runner Listed race had only three horses to count in the Placepot. Before the race I was very keen on Sons And Lovers thinking this must finish in the frame. I decided two have two A’s and one C.

A – numbers 9 and 14

C  - number 15

Horses that won/placed: one A

Sons And Lovers faded into fifth annoyingly, but fortunately my other A got the job done.

Here's how these selections would have looked in the Tix columns.

 

Leg Column A Column B Column C
1 4, 10 3, 5, 6
2 1, 2, 13, 20 8, 9, 11, 17
3 1, 7, 14, 16 3, 12
4 1, 3
5 13, 20 3, 9
6 9, 14 15

 

 

The numbers in bold are the horses that won or placed, but two of them ended up being redundant (number 5 in leg 1 and number 9 in leg 5). The rest, in red, counted on one of the '5 on A, 1 on C' lines and, because I had two win/placed horses in two of the races, I ended up with four winning lines (1 x 1 x 2 x 2 x 1 x 1).

The Placepot to a £1 stake paid £2767.40 meaning each of my four 1p lines netted £27.67, so the overall return on that winning ticket was £110.68 (£27.67 x 4 winning lines). Taking my stake into account and the 5% bonus the Tote pays on winning Tix tickets (yet another reason for using Tix!), I ended up with a profit on the bet of just over £102.

What if?

One two-word phrase we are all too familiar with is ‘what if?’ - so, just for fun, I am going to play that game now. What if I had put six of my original selections in different columns? More specifically, what if my three ‘placers’ on C had been put on A instead; and three of my ‘losers’ from A had been put on C instead?

To achieve this scenario, I could have swapped horses 4 and 5 over in race one, horses 1 and 9 in race two, and horses 20 and 3 in race five. If I had instead done that, I would have had two places in legs 1, 3, 4 and 5, and one place each in legs 2 and 6. That would have given me 16 winning lines quadrupling the return to over £400. Considering all my selections were in A and C this scenario could have happened. Likewise, if a few of my winning A’s ended up as C's I would have won diddly!

Sticking with the ‘what if?’ line, what if my original ticket had been staked differently using Matt’s 4,3,2,1 method? Well, due to only having one successful 5A 1C combo the same payout of £110.68 would have occurred on that ticket (same 1p stake), but the cost of the overall bet would have increased by £7.68 meaning my overall profit would be slightly down at just over £94. (I appreciate that an extra £7.68 stake would have impacted the real-life pot, but it is such a small amount if I had played the bet this way instead my profit would have been virtually the same, give or take a penny or two).

I also looked at what would have happened if I had put all my C selections as B’s instead, sticking to my original 1p per line staking. This would have added an extra £20 or so to the overall stake but I would have had 12 winning lines so my return would have been around the £300 mark (allowing again for any marginal change in the actual Placepot payout due to the extra £20 of staked funds).

Summary

In this article I feel I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the potential and scope of the Tix software. In the first half of the article, I gave a general overview of how Tix works coupled with the flexibility it has in terms of limiting/varying the number of lines using certain configurations. In the second half I have delved into one of my recent Placepot plays looking at what happened, and what could have happened if I had made some slight alterations via Tix to the make-up of my Placepot.

Before writing this, I was a regular user of Tix. Having spent time researching and writing about it, my appreciation and confidence in Tix has improved even more. I am expecting Tix to help me profit further when tackling Placepots in the future. I might even be tempted into a few Jackpots too...

- DR

Monday Musings: Only The Bold

/in /by

I know we’re only halfway through the year; halfway indeed through the decade and barely a quarter into the 21st Century, but I think I’ve just seen the ride of said 100 years, writes Tony Stafford. If you reckon you see one better the other side of 2050, don’t bother try telling me about it, I’ll no longer be here troubling anyone.

My candidate for this purely unbiased accolade was not on show riding the Irish Derby winner – indeed at time of starting this article, the Classic was more than an hour away from being run. I could have a cup of tea and a piece of cake after presenting my case and before sitting down to watch the main event.

The big one here from three jumps only cards – all to the west of the country – was the bet365 Summer Handicap Chase over 3m2f and 20 (to start with) obstacles. Uttoxeter, at 143 miles, was the nearest to London, Ffos Las is 212 miles and Cartmel in the Lake District is 269 miles, for whatever that useless statistic may be worth!

Sometimes it’s only when you’ve backed the recipient of such a ride, especially when the horse comes from out of the clouds as it were, that the degree of amazement is even noticed. I watched Only The Bold, mostly with minimal expectation during the running, purely as it had been my top bet (not supported by cash, I’m afraid) for my From The Stables line in the William Hill Radio Naps table (and, more importantly, for subscribers of a service with the same name, our dear editor being one of the directors).

The horse, a ten-year-old, was having its third run for the Jamie Snowden stable, having shown plenty earlier in its career but suffering from a lack of confidence which brought three consecutive pulled up runs most recently for David Pipe. It happens to the best of them and, sometimes, a change of yard can often be enough to remedy things.

First time for Snowden, Only The Bold was moving well when a mistake halted his progress at Ludlow – resulting in a fourth consecutive “P” on his form line.

But Jamie took heart from that and even more when he rattled home fast but too late into third at Aintree in May. Another two furlongs yesterday and a mark very much down on his peak figure of a couple of years ago meant the near 40 grand first prize had to come to the shrewd Jamie’s notice.

Fifteen horses lined up, soon to be reduced by one from an unseated, and as the leaders - including the Fergal O’Brien-trained Manothepeople - ensured a fast pace, Gavin Sheehan on Only The Bold never looked especially comfortable.

His horse showed little fluency in his jumping and after the first half circuit was firmly among the tailenders. The proximity for a while of the unseated horse didn’t appear to be helping and that might have been why Sheehan took him to the wide outside.

They were in the back three for most of the way, with the jockey manoeuvring widest of all on each of the pretty sharp left-hand bends. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the many new winner-finding formulae available on the internet hasn’t physically tracked the paths of all the runners (it has - Ed.). I guess he would have gone much the furthest but enjoyed the clearest run thanks to Gavin’s steering.

Four from home at Uttoxeter isn’t all that far out, but Only The Bold was still last and on the outside. Then Gavin got going, and on each of the bends you could see his mount running past a few. Coming to two out the Irish-trained Digby had eased past Manothepeople and was still going well and looking impregnable.

A few lengths behind, Only The Bold was being gently switched inside and at the last fence he was within half a length of the not-stopping leader. Now, I was already expecting the miracle to happen, and indeed it did, the Snowden runner showing the better speed while at the same time stopping yet another Irish invader pilfering a hefty chunk of our prize money.

I say pilfering advisedly. Two runs prior Digby had been brought across to Bangor on the back of some ordinary home form and, supported from 40/1 to 22/1, bolted home, a run that brought a question from the stewards. It was accepted after trainer Dermot McLoughlin cited the longer trip as the reason for the improvement.

A win at home over hurdles in between would have boosted expectations and, apart from Only The Bold’s tenacity, Sheehan’s in-race flexibility, and Snowden’s rejuvenation of an apparently lost cause, they would have been on another 16/1 triumph as well as a nice haul of cash.

If you don’t believe me how unlikely it was until the last fence, have a look at the film, but I’m not bothered either way. Eighteen-to-one winners are like rocking horse’s teeth! [26.0 Betfair Starting Price, traded at 140 in running!]

Next, I’m bringing in an event that was run a few minutes after the Irish Derby as up at Cartmel one trainer listed as having only 18 horses in her care in this year’s Horses in Training book, made it two big-race wins on successive days, one in either discipline.

Dianne Sayer and her assistant, the former jumping amateur rider and daughter of the trainer, Emma, were understandably delighted when their Savrola stayed on too strongly for his opponents to win the two-mile Northumberland Vase, consolation race on the flat to the time-honoured Plate, won by Andrew Balding’s Spirit Mixer.

The Vase carried a big cash upgrade from last year and was worth equal to the prize won by Only The Bold at Uttoxeter. Then, yesterday, the Sayers’ Charlie Uberalles went down to Cartmel and took the Oakmere Homes Handicap Chase and its £22k pot, fending off a trio of well-fancied Irish raiders in the process.

At least there was a numerically strong team from the UK vying for the main prizes in the Irish Derby but, predictably, Ryan Moore and Lambourn landed the odds and added to the horse’s Betfred Derby victory at Epsom.

Lambourn did not make all at the Curragh this time; indeed he was unable to as he was challenged on his inside from the early stages by Richard Kingscote on Sir Dinadan, very much the Ralph Beckett stable’s second string as far as the market was concerned. He kept a ridden Lambourn company until well into the straight when the favourite took over. If we had expected him to draw away from that point we were mistaken, as a later challenge came but not from any of the beaten Epsom contenders, rather from much closer to home.

Serious Contender, another of the Aidan O’Brien/Coolmore contingent, was reappearing only ten days after he was beaten from a mark of 92 in one of the Royal Ascot three-year-old handicaps, and he gave favourite backers a serious fright. One trainer I was speaking to last week was suggesting that finishing even tenth in that mile and a half race or in the Britannia over a mile at the fixture meant you were probably a good way ahead of your handicap mark.

William Haggas, not afraid to run Group 1 horses in handicaps, won the race with Merchant off 90. He went up to 103 last Tuesday and, with his nearest victim then getting so close to the Derby winner in the Irish Derby, he’ll get another jump. I doubt Haggas or the owners, one of Highclere’s syndicates, will mind. If a deal hasn’t already been done, he’ll be on his way before long for a nice few quid.

The last 50 yards or so of the Irish Derby was extraordinary. As the winner edged away from his stablemate, it was only then that Lazy Griff, under William Buick got running for Charlie Johnston and Middleham Park Racing, losing one spot on his Epsom runner-up position. He again had the better of Epsom third Tennessee Stud by a neck while Sir Dinadan was another neck away fifth and Green Impact a nose back in sixth.

That last gasp effort made a €100k difference to the Middleham Park shareholders, but up front another one-two in an Irish Derby brought a heady €950k to the home team. It was O’Brien’s 17th Irish Derby victory, his first coming in 1997. Surely no top-level race anywhere in the world can ever have been so dominated by one stable over such a length of time.

- TS

Evaluating Jockeys by Percentage of Rivals Beaten, Part 2

/in , /by

This is the second half of an analysis of jockey performance using the Percentage of Rivals Beaten metric, following this one I wrote back at the beginning of June, writes Dave Renham. This time, I will put the same 35 jockeys – those that have had the greatest number of rides on average per year over the past four years - under the microscope.

Introduction

The data has been taken from UK flat racing (turf + AW) from 2021 to 2024. I have also limited findings to horses the jockeys rode sent off at an Industry Starting Price of 20/1 or less in order to try and eliminate most of the horses that had little or no chance. Also, very big priced winners skew the data.

In the first article I primarily examined the data by using and comparing numbers based on Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB). PRB is a calculation based on a horse's finishing position in relation to field size. It makes key distinctions between a horse finishing, say, fourth in seven-horse race (PRB 50%, three rivals beaten, beaten by three rivals) and finishing fourth in a sixteen-horse race (PRB 80%, twelve rivals beaten, beaten by three rivals). We express the PRB as a number between 0 and 1. So, in the examples above, 50% is 0.5 and 80% is 0.8.

For this piece I will be primarily using PRB once more, and I will also be looking at strike rates, profit/loss, returns and A/E indices where appropriate. Using other metrics in conjunction with the PRBs should help to give us a clearer overall picture.

Before I start, I noted last time that certain jockey to jockey comparisons were difficult to evaluate from a PRB perspective due to what I will call ‘jockey price bias’. Essentially, some jockeys have more shorter priced rides than others, and thus conversely, other jockeys have more bigger priced rides. This could potentially skew the PRB, so it is something I am aware of and will address in what follows.

My starting point today is going to field size.

Number of race runners

It should be noted that in races of 2 to 6 runners the average PRB figure for all jockeys riding horses priced 20/1 or shorter stands at 0.55; for 7 to 9 runners, it is 0.57; for 10 to 12 it is 0.59 and for 13+ runner races it is 0.60. Knowing these figures is important to help evaluate each jockeys’ performance within each 'number of runners' grouping. However, based on my findings last time connected with jockey price bias, I also need to consider the average PRB for each jockey to provide better context. Using these two factors in tandem I have used a mathematical formula to establish what are positive PRBs and which are negative for each individual. As in the first article, positives will be highlighted in green, negatives in red:

 

 

Let’s look at the very small field size of 2 to 6 runners first. The PRB positives highlight Ghiani, Havlin, Loughnane, Stott and Watson. Let’s see if that translates into an overall profit:

 

 

Four of the five made a blind profit with only Rob Havlin in the red. When digging deeper into Jason Watson’s figures it is impressive to note that he made a profit in three of the four years, and his losing year was only 5p in the £. Also, most of Watson's winners were at the shorter priced end of market; if we restrict to runners priced 8/1 or less his record actually improves further to 63 wins from 233 (SR 27.04%) for a profit of £ 50.78 (ROI +21.79).

Meanwhile, Kevin Stott managed four profitable years in a row which is even more eye-catching. Finally for this group of jockeys, geegeez-sponsored rider Marco Ghiani proved himself to be an exceptional judge of pace in these smaller field contests winning 19 of 46 (SR 41.3%) on horses that took the lead early.

Time to look at the jockeys that had a negative PRB. Here are their figures:

 

 

All six made a loss although Oisin Murphy and Sean Levey's deficits were modest. Murphy and Danny Muscutt struggled when the runners were bigger prices: restricting to horses priced 10/1 to 20/1 saw Murphy win just once from 40 for losses of 68p in the £, and Muscutt was beaten on all 40 horses he rode in that price range.

There are four other jockeys I would like to highlight when racing in field sizes of 2 to 6 runners and they are Joe Fanning, Paul Mulrennan, Saffie Osborne and David Probert. The ‘graph’ below shows they all had very similar win strike rates (red numbers) and made decent returns (BSP ROI%, black numbers) too:

 

 

It should be noted that both Saffie Osborne and Paul Mulrennan were very good from the front in small fields. Both won 35%  of the time in such small field races when taking the early lead. It seems likely, then, that both are good judges of pace.

I am not going to go into any depth regarding the 7 to 9 and 10 to 12 runner stats. However, I will take a quick look at the bigger field contests of 13 or more runners in terms of the jockeys who achieved a positive PRB. In bigger fields, being poorly positioned and/or avoiding trouble in running becomes far more relevant. I am guessing that some jockeys are simply better than others at avoiding trouble in running or being poorly positioned.

In terms of those who had positive PRBs the table below shows the splits:

 

 

Despite the positive PRBs the results of Callum Shepherd, and particularly Kieran O’Neill, were not good for punters. We cannot really expect all eight to have returned a profit, but the losses for those two were steeper than I expected. On the flip side four made a blind profit, of which three (Jason Hart, Billy Loughnane and Rossa Ryan) produced a very significant profit. The other two made a small loss.

These figures do highlight that PRBs on their own, for this type of research at least, can be flawed. This is the same for any metric – for example a high strike rate does not guarantee profits, a good return on investment can be skewed due to a single big priced winner, and so on. That's why reviewing different metrics where possible is the ideal.

Going back to the table, Rossa Ryan’s figures are outstanding across the board. His returns (ROI%) to BSP by year are shown below:

 

 

I believe that one of the reasons for his success in bigger fields has been his ability to win on hold up horses. The win percentage for all jockeys combined in 13+ runner events when they held their mounts up stood at just 7.5% in the study period; Ryan’s was nearly double that on 14.2%. Not surprisingly, his strike rate on hold ups was the highest of all the jockeys. There is definitely something in this because Jason Hart, who also made significant profits in 13+ runner events recorded a strike of 13.6% on hold ups which is the second best of all the jockeys. Being able to manoeuvre your mount successfully through traffic in bigger fields will naturally lead to more wins overall.

Race Class

I want to look at class of race next with the starting focus on the better quality Class 1 and 2 races. I have split their results by price in order to help eliminate any bias. Combining the data for both classes, as some jockeys have limited Class 1 data within certain price bands, helps to get more meaningful datasets. I have chosen four ISP price bands – 7/2 or shorter, 4/1 to 7/1, 15/2 to 10/1, and 11/1 or bigger.

The average figures for all jockeys in the list are shown in blue at the bottom of each column and, because we are dealing with price bands, we have a more level playing field to compare one jockey’s PRB with another. Therefore, I have highlighted any PRB that is at least 3% above the average or at least 3% below the average. The 3% ‘above group’ (positive) are highlighted in green, the 3% ‘below group’ (negative) in red. Any PRB with an asterisk (*) means the dataset was limited so we should probably ignore that number. Here are the findings:

 

 

Connor Beasley and Danny Tudhope stand out with three greens and no reds. Those two jockeys seem to have excelled in the better class races, at least according to the PRBs. If we look at their profit and loss figures, we see that Beasley was +£90.43 (ROI +34.8%); while Tudhope was +£60.11 (ROI +9.6%).  At the other end of the scale David Allen and Sam James have three reds and no greens. Overall, they lost 17p and 12p in the £ respectively.

What this PRB research is telling us is that some jockeys are almost certainly better than their win rates suggest, they just don’t ride enough horses with good chances. Take Saffie Osborne as an example in Class 1 and 2 races when riding bigger priced runners. Her PRB for the 11/1 to 20/1 price band was an excellent 0.52 qualifying for a ‘green’. However, when you look at her actual overall record with these runners she has won just once in 75 attempts for huge losses if you were backing them all to win. However, if you had backed her horses to place on Betfair she would have made a profit! Her rides within this subset have been outperforming their odds more often than not.

Let's now look  at the lower end of the class scale, namely Class 5 and 6 races. I'm using the same price splits and the same colour coding:

 

 

There are fewer reds and greens here in total compared to the higher grade of race. James Doyle, David Egan and Rob Havlin have hit two greens, while Joe Fanning's performance looks more modest with three reds.

Courses by Jockey

Finally, in this piece, although there are still plenty of stats to share, I am looking at a selection of the 35 jockeys and comparing their PRB figures at different courses. This should be a very effective use of PRB data as a comparison tool because the comparison is with the individual jockey themselves. I am only using courses where a jockey had enough rides to be meaningful. I am not sharing the course data of all 35 jockeys due to space, but more importantly due to personal time constraints!

David Allan

A look at Allan’s PRBs – the graph below shows the results:

 

 

The PRBs range from 0.53 at Haydock and Musselburgh to 0.63 at Pontefract and Southwell. Indeed, Southwell is the course where Allen fared best in terms of profitability having had 25 winners from 97 rides (SR 25.8%) for a BSP profit of £98.13 (ROI +101.16). He did not made a blind profit at Pontefract, but this is probably more down to luck as he had numerous seconds (22 second places compared with 12 wins from 104 rides). Some of those seconds were at fair prices such as BSP 10.63, 11.83, 18.5, 21 and 30. Going back to Haydock and Musselburgh where he had his lowest PRBs, both showed significant losses of 52p and 25p in the £ respectively.

Connor Beasley

A look at Connor Beasley now:

 

 

The one course well below the rest in terms of PRBs, Carlisle, has been a poor hunting ground for winners for Beasley, too. He had just had five winners from 68 (SR 7.4%) for losses of £37.33 (ROI -54.9%). The highest PRB came from Southwell, but Beasley made a loss there; although he made an 18% profit if backing place only to Betfair Place SP. Beasley hit a PRB of 0.61 at Beverley, Doncaster and Thirsk, the first two named both producing a blind profit. His record at Doncaster was the best with 16 wins from 82 (SR 19.5%) for a profit of £38.29 (ROI +46.7%).

William Buick

William Buick is the next jockey to share – for his figures I have put them in a table. The five highest have been highlighted in green:

 

 

The five greens (Haydock 0.66, Kempton 0.68, Leicester 0.66, Windsor 0.66, Yarmouth 0.69) have produced the following:

 

 

Four of the five saw a blind profit with only Kempton failing. However, in the better races (Class 1 and 2) at the Sunbury track he made a small profit thanks to 10 wins from 28 (SR 35.7%) for a profit of £4.65 (ROI +16.6%). There are five more positive course angles for Buick to share which I will share in the following table:

 

 

Hollie Doyle

Hollie’s PRBs were perhaps a tad disappointing as I’m a big advocate of hers and of women’s sport generally. Having said that, her overall record speaks for itself and her win percentages across different price bands match up well with other leading jockeys. For her course PRB data I am sharing all the qualifying courses combined with other key metrics. The courses are ordered by PRB highest to lowest:

 

 

What this table illustrates, other than Doyle’s individual course PRBs, is that four of the five courses with the highest PRBs produced a blind profit – Bath, Chepstow, Brighton and Kempton. Not only that, the further you go down the list the redder the BSP PL and ROI columns become. The correlation between PRBs and profit/loss and return on investment is more positive than negative.

There are a few extras to share as far as Hollie is concerned - at Bath her record in handicaps has been excellent with 14 wins from 61 (SR 23%) for a profit of £21.58 (ROI +35.4%). Sticking with Bath her 15 winners came from 14 different trainers. Not only that, but her boss Archie Watson is not one of them! At Chepstow she is 8 from 23 for Watson producing a return of 91p in the £, and on favourites at the same track she won 13 of 25 (SR 52%) for a profit of £12.50 (ROI +36.7%).

Joe Fanning

Joe Fanning is still going strong at 54 years old. The PRBs for the courses he rides the most are shown below:

 

 

Let’s look at more metrics at the four courses with PRB figures of over 0.60:

 

 

As we can see there is excellent correlation between the PRB figures and profit/return columns with all four in profit. Three of the four had very high A/E indices which is equally positive.

In terms of negatives the two courses with the lowest PRBs Hamilton (0.49) and Wolves (0.50) produced the following overall results:

 

 

There have been significant losses at both courses, with Hamilton’s win rate particularly poor also.

Oisin Murphy

Oisin Murphy has been Champion jockey four times in the last six years, and he is undoubtably one of the top riders around. There are 18 courses where he has had enough rides / rivals and the PRBs are as follows (courses with a PRB figure of 0.67 or higher are highlighted in green):

 

 

The 0.71 figure for Newcastle stands out and his overall record there is impressive as can be seen in the table below. The table shows the results for the six courses with his highest PRBs:

 

 

Four of the six secured a profit to BSP, with two (Kempton and Yarmouth) showing very small losses. It is interesting that four of the six courses were all-weather tracks. It is also worth noting that when riding for Andrew Balding at Newcastle Murphy had a 50% strike rate (9 wins from 18) for a profit of £30.50 (ROI +169.5%). For Hugo Palmer he rode six times at Salisbury, winning five, while at Wolves the pair were five from 10. Admittedly these are small samples but eye-catching, nonetheless.

Saffie Osborne

Saffie Osborne has had some solid looking PRBs across both articles and it will be interesting to drill down into her course PRBs. The graph below shows the different course figures:

 

 

The four courses with the highest PRBs were Southwell (0.66), Newmarket (0.65), Brighton (0.64) and Newcastle (0.62). The table shows the results for these four courses:

 

 

Osborne recorded excellent profits at all four, with very high A/E indices showing positive correlation with the PRBs. She has ridden those four courses very well in the past four years.

The three courses with the lowest PRBs - Doncaster (0.50), Bath (0.51) and Chelmsford (0.52) - saw returns correlate positively too as each showed significant losses. Losses stood at 30p, 49p and 26p in the £ respectively.

Rossa Ryan

Ryan is the last jockey I am looking at here and his course PRB figures are shown in the table below:

 

 

The four highest PRBs are highlighted in green, Chelmsford (0.65), Newbury (0.64), Wolverhampton (0.64) and Lingfield (0.63). Here were his overall results at these four tracks.

 

 

All four again were in profit suggesting positive correlation once more between the PRBs and other key metrics. For the record most of his rides at Lingfield came on the all-weather (AW) and his AW ROI% at the track stood at 11%.

The lowest PRB occurred when racing at Sandown (0.51) – his overall record there has been relatively poor, as one might suspect. He had 11 winners from 89 (SR 12.4%) for a loss of £30.71 (ROI 34.5%).

-

Phew! That was a lot of research and a lot of stats.

Ultimately, as punters we 'live or die' by our final profit/loss figure. Having a high PRB does not necessarily equal profit, but this article has shown that higher PRBs tend to outperform lower ones on the ledger front. As I have always said, the more metrics we can use the better. PRBs are definitely a metric we should use where possible in combination with others: they add a lot more depth, especially in smaller sample sizes.

- DR

Your first 30 days for just £1