True or False? Busting racing myths

Mythbusters: Five Racing Adages Under The Microscope

True or False? Busting racing myths

True or False? Busting racing myths

This post was originally penned in Summer 2015 and, as part of a Throwback Thursday, I revisited the adages to see if the data still held as it did two and a half years ago...

Racing, like every other sport, has its clichés. It also has its conventional wisdom.

Alas, rarely do such 'accepted as true' statements get put to the test, so how is the average punter on the street to know whether he's making a good or poor investment?

Simple. Look at the data!

In this post, I'll put five racing adages to the test, starting with that hoary old chestnut...

1. "Back the outsider of three"

The first thing to say is that for all five adages, I've used all UK races since the start of 2011. That is, nigh on four and a half years worth of data. Stage set, to business...

It's rare that you'll be in a betting shop or watching racing on the TV and not hear the phrase, "back the outsider of three", just after the market third choice has prevailed in a three horse race. But what do the numbers say?

Of the 578 three horse races in UK since 2011, 80 (13.84%) were won by the outsider. Backing them blind would have lost you money. But wait. It would have lost you £7.29 for a £1 level stake, a negative ROI of just 1.26%.

Compare that with backing favourites in all races blindly, which had a negative ROI of 6.82% and you'll see that it's actually far from the worst strategy in the world.

Indeed, let's use the -6.82% ROI as our barometer. Obviously, any number with a minus sign in front of it won't turn a profit. But if we can score better than blindly backing the favourite, then we can suggest there is at least some merit in the adage. After all, most tipsters - and most punters for that matter - can't do better than the unnamed favourite over time.

Backing the outsider of three since 2011 at Betfair SP would have returned £50.80 for a £578 stake, a positive ROI of 8.79%.

Before anyone charges off to religiously back the rag in three horse races (no, I know you wouldn't, but I'll say this anyway...), note that year to year it's a pretty volatile picture: healthy profit in 2011 (+83 at SP!) and 2013, but steady losses in the other years.

Still, there are worse ways to slowly burn through a bundle of cash than this. As we'll see...

True or False? TRUE (just about)

Late 2017 update: since 14th June 2015, when this post was first published, there have been another 323 three-horse races in Britain. 54 of them (16.72%) were won by the outsider, for a starting price profit of 25.54 units, and a BSP positive return of nigh on 50 units.

Revised True or False? STILL TRUE

*

2. "Never bet odds on in novice chases"

Novice chases. The most precarious of punting propositions. Or are they? The received wisdom is that "it's a mug's game" backing horses in novice chases at shy of even money. But is that true? Again, let's look at the data.

The favourite was sent off at odds-on in 414 UK (non-handicap) novice chases since the beginning of 2011, and won 258 of them (62.47%). A pound on each would have lost you £11.76 at starting price. That's an ROI of -2.84%, which again is considerably better than backing favourites blindly.

Moreover, backing odds-on in all other race types (flat and jumps) since 2011 would have lost you 5.92% of stakes, a much less appetizing situation.

Interestingly, perhaps, exchange players seem to be on to this - or there's no latitude to beat the commission - because backing novice chasers at odds-on with Betfair would have still lost money. Just 1.4% of stakes (or £5.81 on turnover of £414), but a loss nevertheless.

Again, though, this is a lot safer premise than many people believe.

True or False? FALSE (just about)

Late 2017 update: since 14th June 2015, when this post was first published, there have been another 278 odds-on novice or beginners' chasers in non-handicaps. They won 178 of their races (64.03%) but LOST 13.94 points. At BSP, the loss was 9.13 points after commission. A loss is a loss but you'll stay in the game long term, if never getting your nose far in front, adopting this particular brain-dead approach!

Revised True or False? TRUE (just about)

*

3. "Back the longest traveller"

The longest traveller. A trainer sends a horse 300 miles up country (only to have to drive 300 miles back again afterwards) for a tin pot race. Surely it must be off for its life, no? Surely?!

Erm, actually, this is a bit of a disaster area for reckless punters. Backing the clear longest traveller in each race since 2011 would have lost 22.67% of stakes. Ouch!

This was so bad I actually tried to qualify it and improve the situation. But, even focusing only on those horses being sent 300 miles or more by their trainers returned an eye-watering, bank-crippling 14.65% loss on stakes.

If someone tells you they've got a system based on longest travellers - with the possible exception of a few ultra-shrewd trainers who wouldn't run their horses past the post office in the village unless they actually were "off for their lives" - run a mile. Or 300.

True or False? FALSE (EPIC FAIL!)

Late 2017 update: since 14th June 2015, when this post was first published, there have been another 2538 runners to have travelled 300+miles to the track (or from overseas) as the furthest traveller in their race. They've won 410 races (16.15%) and lost a whopping 247 points at SP. However... at Betfair SP, they WON 215 points. That was in part down to a couple of 110 BSP winners (66/1 and 50/1 at SP). This would be an extremely volatile 'method' for punting, and certainly not for the faint of heart or small of bankroll.

Revised True or False? FALSE (in spite of the BSP bump)

*

4. "Follow a filly in form"

It's a popular expression, though a tad harder to quantify than the first three. What constitutes being 'in form'? At its simplest, we could say that a filly (or mare, a female of the breed at least) that won last time out is 'in form'. Why not start there?

Last time out female winners follow up 17% of the time, or about one in six, for a negative ROI of 16.61%. That compares with male winners who follow up 19% of the time, for a negative ROI of 14.6%.

Or, to put it another way, it compares unfavourably both with the un-fairer sex and with the bottom line.

What about fillies/mares who won their last two races?

Your first 30 days for just £1

This time, the girls completed the hat-trick 20.19% of the time, for an ROI of -14.09% (just -4.32% at Betfair SP); while the boys notched the treble at a rate of 21.57% for an ROI of -18.15% (-10.49% at BSP).

The girls did slightly worse in strike rate terms, but a good bit better in ROI terms. That's relative to the boys, of course, because both would have cost fortunes to blindly follow.

Incidentally, that supplementary about expecting fillies to improve/blossom in the autumn is dealt a blow by the knowledge that, in strike rate terms, September was only the seventh best performing month, and October was the eighth of the twelve calendar months.

The top five months for fillies and mares to record hat-tricks, in ROI terms at least, include the sequential May to August quartet (April was sixth best, December - a notably smaller sample size - the interloper in the Spring/Summer sequence).

So here's something with which to tread very carefully:

 - Back fillies or mares on a hat-trick between May and August

That group managed 162 wins from 759 starts (21.34%) for a £1 level stakes starting price profit of £12.82 (1.69% SP)

Taking BOG early prices where you can, or backing at Betfair SP would improve the position somewhat. Indeed, BSP returns were a profit of £108.71 (14.32% ROI), which is pretty tidy.

Again, before anyone goes piling in (not that anyone would, I'm sure), keep in mind that the three years (2008-2010) immediately preceding the sample period (2011-present) were loss-making; and also that 2015 thus far has been negative equity territory.

Anyhoo, to the question: "Back a filly in form"

True or False? FALSE (in quite a big way, though the data mutton can be dressed as profit lamb, as we've seen)

Late 2017 update: since 14th June 2015, when this post was first published, there have been another 451 hat-trick-seeking ladies between May and August. 96 won (21.29%) but it has been car crash territory in terms of the bottom line, with a negative ROI at SP of 27%. Even at BSP it's -22% ROI. Ouch.

Revised True or False? FALSE (big time, no dressing up the data this time)

*

5. "The bigger the field, the bigger the certainty"

Last but not least is the ultimate contrarians' maxim, "The bigger the field, the bigger the certainty". Put another way, short priced horses in big field races are a good bet. It seems quirky, but does it hold water? As ever, the truth lies not in the sound bite, but in the murky guts of a racing database.

Framing a question for a database around this one is, again, less straightforward than some which have been covered already. But it is far from impossible.

The biggest 'certainty' in any race - in general terms - must be the horse at the top of the market, i.e. the favourite. So we'll use that as a starting point for the 'certainty' element.

With regards to big fields, let us arbitrarily choose 16 runners, the point at which a handicap pays four places to each way backers. (Not that any intrepid 'big field cert' evangelists are looking to bet the place..!)

Favourites in UK races of 16 or more runners since 2011 won 19.53% of the time for a loss at SP of 13.96% of stakes. At Betfair SP, the picture is slightly less morose at 'just' -7.04%.

But perhaps when one says 'certainty' one has only the shorter priced jollies in mind. Overcoming the temptation to arbitrarily introduce a threshold, we can instead review the data as a whole. An interesting picture emerges...

The (small) group of horses sent off at odds-on were loss-making, to the tune of about 17.5% ROI. As brutal as that sounds, there were only 44 such horses in a four and a half year period; and the wider vista offers cause for optimism.

Specifically, it seems that profitability can be eked - and I do mean eked - up to a starting price of around 9/4. In ROI terms it's minimal, at 6.46% (£16.74 for level quids) on 259 bets, though some considerable way ahead of 'all favourites' in big fields.

This piqued my interest to take a look at the handicap/non-handicap split. I can report that the big field (16+ runners) handicap shorties (9/4 or less) performed better than their non-handicap counterparts, though unsurprisingly from a smallish sample of just 65 runners.

Because of the small sample size, I looked at the longer term dataset, and found that if one had...

- Bet the favourite at 9/4 or shorter in handicaps of 16+ runners

...one would have done better than acceptably well. Looking at the above rule, and using the Betfair SP data I have from 2007 to the present, this approach would have yielded a profit of £37.33 at BSP (£29.33 at SP) on 209 bets, for an ROI of 22.63%.

NB Although 9/4 is a 'convenience cut off', the approach still operates at break even up to 10/3, so I'd be happy enough with this. (You can judge for yourself whether it works for you!)

True or False? TRUE

Late 2017 update: since 14th June 2015, when this post was first published, there have been another 35 short-priced (9/4 or lower) jollies in 16+ runner handicaps. 11 won, for a loss at SP of 3.73 points, and a negligible loss at BSP. If one loosened the odds filter to 10/3 as above, the story becomes more favourable (33 from 109, +7.43 at SP, +15.27 at BSP). Whilst one could accuse the writer of contrivance here - and you'd get little in the way of a defence! - the general point that short-priced favourites in big-field handicaps are a reasonable bet is maintained

Revised True or False? TRUE (just about)

*

Summary

This little exercise, which is hardly more than a bit of fun, has at least shone a dim beam on some of the more popular adages within the racing space.

We've seen that backing the outsider of three is no worse than harmless fun, and could yield a small profit. And that betting odds on in novice chases is unlikely to be the death knell for your ledger either. Caution is advised when backing fillies in form through the Summer (and it is simply bad practice to do this generally).

More materially, perhaps, we've learnt that backing the longest traveller is the shortest of our five ways to the poor house.

And we've unearthed the rudimentary basis of a profitable approach by betting big field handicap jollies up to around 3/1.

Inevitably, not all of the five maxims lend themselves to unequivocal investigation - after all, it is to some degree their vagueness that has sustained their popular credence over the years - so I've taken license and attempted to portray a broader array of situations which could lay claim to fitting the bill. Others will doubtless interpret some of the adages another way.

Regardless of how you interpret them, the key is to test that interpretation against a data source. It is, after all, never too late to stop losing money and/or start making a few quid from your wagering antics.

Hopefully this has put into context some of the more loosely bandied phrases that are part of the furniture of British racing punditry. The next time you hear these trite bites you'll at least have a bit of data ballast on which to rely: that's almost certainly more than the speaker has!

Your first 30 days for just £1
29 replies
  1. Chris Worrall says:

    What about backing the outsider of three, if she’s an in-form filly running in the summer over 300 miles from home? 😀

    Reply
  2. Blokeshead says:

    Re Point 3 … might you not have laid the foundations for a relatively simple laying system there?

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      I merely presented the data, Staurt!

      Specifically on that one, there’s no odds threshold, so you might need brown trousers to lay them all. Still, as a foundation it could be the start of something, potentially.

      Matt

      Reply
  3. Neil says:

    Very interesting content Matt.

    This is yet another reason why the average bettor makes a loss over all.
    My father always used to use a similar myth (back horses carrying 8st in a handicap).

    Apparently the handicapper is unsure what weight to give a horse so they lump it with 8st! That’s what my father heard anyway!!

    It’s funny how you hear these myths regularly on course and in the high street. Thankfully we have a number of fantastic data websites that put these myths in their place 99% of the time!

    Reply
  4. Paul Cockerill says:

    Matt I’d be interested on your take on my idea. It’s simply this, where a trainer has the clear market favourite in a race, if he is also running another horse in the same race back that one. After all he must think it has a chance and of course it will be a much better price.

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      It is an interesting idea, Paul, and one I’ve thought about myself from time to time. But I don’t have a tool to check it unfortunately.

      Matt

      Reply
    • les oosten says:

      Would be hard to find the data, but its a good idea, have definitely seen this happen a fair bit, most will be drawn to the obvious, other, unfancied, friendless in the market, and bolts in.

      Reply
  5. Robert Day says:

    Hi all, I have heard all these and more besides down the years and still to day
    young kids come in and take up the batten just to throw their slips on the floor. The only way to win in this game is to study form and stats, it’s long and hard but it has to be done. Handicaps are some of the best races to back in
    look for the one with most prize money then check all horses for last winning weight especially first 5 in betting that’s were the winners come from in all
    handicaps. Forget all the hype from tipsters who claim to have inside info
    (IE Alex Gorry) those on ch4 should be multi millionaires by now and living
    in the south of France or Monaco think about it,there tips are no better than
    any one ells,so do the homework and good luck.
    Yours Scouse.

    Reply
  6. Col says:

    What about backing a jockey with just one ride at 2 meetings?
    More likely to win if a top jockey flying between courses but less so the jobbing jockey driving like crazy to get between 2 courses in an afternoon, I’d say.

    Reply
  7. Daryl says:

    Rule #2 there is a slight variation which brings about a profitable angle.
    If a chase debutant is odds on and is up against rivals with previous experience over fences, then the favourite is worth laying.
    My take on it is that no amount of schooling really rivals jumping fences in races and just one mistake can knock the confidence of a novice.

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Interesting snippet, Daryl. Thanks for sharing. The converse – backing experienced novices at odds on – much presumably be profitable too, then. I’ll look into it later.

      Matt

      Reply
  8. David says:

    Backing the outsider in all 7 runner handicaps with a ceiling of around BSP 50 to avoid some that would probably only add to the inevitable long losing runs, should provide sufficient races to enable filters to point us in the right direction – or at least steer us away from some wrong directions.

    I seem to notice every time one pops up but never followed it through.

    Personally I don’t have access to any way of proving / disproving the results and I’m certainly not going to do it manually!

    Reply
  9. lickybits says:

    i personally stay away from small field races of 3-7 runners has i feel there not true run races (pace wise) and sometimes when no jockey is willing to take up the running unexpected results occur..

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi David

      Since 2011, before today, you’d have won 95 from 2443 races (SR 3.89%) for a loss at BETFAIR SP of 450.93 units. That’s a negative ROI of 18.46% and the equivalent of punting suicide, I’m afraid.

      Matt

      Reply
  10. David says:

    River Dart just got another 53.59 back though.

    I did only notice the winners rather than research just how many potential bets there may have been.

    When you get 2 winners like that in one day your memory let’s you live off them until the next WINNER.

    That is when you ask yourself two questions.

    How long ago since the last winner – easily checked on any results page as the name of the horse is likely to be remembered or at least something about the day would be memorable.

    How many losers would there have been in that period – and I just assumed there would be plenty due to the nature of the beast.

    I still think that the sample may be sufficient to find an angle somewhere but am slightly surprised at the number of races.

    That is possibly due to the number of races with 8 or 9 declared runners not ending up that way. However, I think we have similar views on that one at least!

    Reply
  11. Blokeshead says:

    I’m well-known in my circle of acquaintances for having the worst memory in this or any other hemisphere but, even with that in mind, it was a bit of a shock to read something so enjoyable this morning and, only upon reaching the bottom, spotting that I’d enjoyed it so much the first time around (just the 2½ years ago) that I’d then been moved to comment on it! I guess it’s old age, but surely with a mental age of 12 I can’t have early-onset Alzheimer’s yet???

    Anyway, a different thought crossed my mind this morning, one that Matt (in his role as multiple owner) might have an answer to. Why DO owners and/or trainers send a horse 300 miles to run like a three-legged donkey on Valium before having to drive the poor thing home again? It must, after all, cost a few bob, in terms of both money and time. I can see why it’s a good idea if there are numerous other horses making the same trip (e.g. it might be good experience for the lad – or lass – we’re discussing here), but surely nobody in their right mind drives 600 miles with one horse in one horsebox knowing there’s nothing to gain but a bit of experience?

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Haha, thanks Stuart for enjoying this article twice!

      Re horses travelling a long way for a day out, it may be that the owner lives nearby; or simply that the trainer thinks the horse has a better chance than transpires. The actual transporting of a horse to the track is not straightforward either: some take it (a lot) worse than others. Longer journeys obviously have more scope for problems to occur…

      Those are just a few random thoughts, some of which may have a bearing on that bottom line.

      Matt

      Reply
  12. TREVOR COOK says:

    A true story from the days of the smoked filled betting shop with the blacked out windows the 60’s a fellow walked in and placed a bet of £2 on a horse called GOMERSOLL at odds of 25/1 the result it won how did you find that a local man asked,it has 9 letters and the middle letter R was the reply picked up his winnings and left never seen again,leaving a bemused locals and grumpy bookmaker.

    Reply
  13. MrForce says:

    Just read the mythbuster article and wondered about backing the outsider of 3 (Myth 1) in a Novice Chase with a odd-on favourite (Myth 2)?

    Reply
  14. Lawrence says:

    Matt, whilst it probably wouldn’t be worth pursuing without some serious refinement, is there an easy way to reverse the criteria for the novice chases to look at winning long-odds horses? I started paper trading a while back on a VERY loose notion that whilst the market is often right, there is more scope for it to be wrong in novice events. Whether through trainer/jockey bias leading to a short price favourite, or general lack of knowing enough about the horses, I found it interesting (and somewhat puzzling) that any runner can effectively be discarded as a 33/1 shot or worse when there is little to nothing to go on in terms of optimal trip and/or ground. It became cumbersome to try and get a good dataset through paper trading and recording all the results manually, but over the short time I did see plenty make the frame at odds of 16/1+, and at least a couple winning at 40 or 66… I’d imagine it’s pretty volatile but perhaps with some key criteria applied it could throw up some interesting results?

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Lawrence

      Query Tool is your friend here. Set it for chases/non-handicap and the odds range you want. To avoid picking up Championship races, try using a Class filter (say 2-5).

      Best,
      Matt

      Reply
  15. Pete says:

    “The bigger the field” is a really interesting one. It produces even bigger profits with younger horses aged 2-5 (likely to still be improving) and low profile trainers (less likely to be over hyped).

    Reply
  16. Dave D says:

    Hi Matt,
    great post as usual.
    how do the middle of three fair compared to the outsider or the the jolly?
    especially when the middle horse isn’t too far in the market from the favourite.

    Reply
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Dave

      This is something you can test for yourself using Query Tool. I could answer it, but then you’d not be any further forward in your own experimenting on the site! 😉

      Here’s the link you need: https://www.geegeez.co.uk/tools/query-tool/

      Best,
      Matt

      p.s. if you have any further questions once you’ve done your own digging, drop me an email and I’ll try to help

      Reply
      • Dave D says:

        Hi Matt,

        thanks for the reply. great to point me in the right direction but get me to learn for myself.
        cheers mate

        Dave D.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *