Tag Archive for: Chelmsford City Racecourse

All-Weather Analysis: Chelmsford Racecourse

/in /by

As we move into September, the weather is starting to change, and my mind is drawn to the autumn and winter racing programme, writes Dave Renham. I will be looking at National Hunt racing in the near future but, before that, what follows is the first article in a new series focusing on the all-weather tracks. In it, I will dig into numerous key stats at the six UK all-weather tracks, as well as looking in detail for the first time at Dundalk in Ireland.

I will be using all-weather racing data from 1st January 2017 to 31st August 2022 when analysing the UK tracks, giving us the opportunity to examine a plethora of stats and angles. I have used the Geegeez Query Tool for all the data collection, and hence all profits / losses have been calculated to Industry Starting Price. However, as I have mentioned before we will be able to improve upon these figures by using either BOG, early prices or the exchanges.

I have shared stats about Chelmsford racecourse before in regards to running style, and also I have looked briefly at the draw, too. I will update both of these here, and there is a number of other areas I am going to look into as well. Let's start with running style.

Running Style (Pace) Bias at Chelmsford

When looking at run style, I have always focused on handicaps, and handicaps with fields of eight or more runners. In an article published in autumn last year (2021), the data strongly pointed to a front-running bias in races staged between 5f and 7f; the strongest bias was at the minimum trip, then seven furlongs, and then six furlongs. I have decided to share only the new data since I collated that article, which gives eleven months of results to analyse. Below are the win strike rates for front runners over these three trips in 8+ runner handicaps (1st Oct ’21 to 31st Aug ’22):

 

  

The figures correlate well with the longer term data, so in these types of races whoever leads early does have a clear edge. The A/E indices show a similar picture:

 

 

The 7f figure is slightly above the long term average figure, but that can happen with smaller samples.

What is clear is that there is a sliding scale in these races when it comes to run style – front runners have the advantage; prominent racers are next best and those mid division or held up are definitely at a disadvantage.

Before moving on, here is the long-term run style picture in terms of win strike rate across all distances at Chelmsford going back to the start of 2017 (8+ runner handicaps):

 

 

There's a strong correlation between race distance and front end advantage: generally, the shorter the distance the stronger the front-running bias; once we get to a mile and 1m2f the bias is minimal. At 1m 5f or further, front-runners are at a disadvantage.

 

Draw Bias at Chelmsford

Onto to the Chelmsford draw now, and for this area I will again be ignoring smaller fields and sticking to 8+ runner handicaps.

The racecourse map below shows the course is left handed and the lowest draws are positioned closest to the inside. Hence, over the shorter distances one would expect an advantage of some sort for lower drawn runners.

 

 

Chelmsford City Racecourse 5 furlong Draw Bias

When I look at the draw, my first port of call is to split the field into three thirds and compare the win percentages. Here are the relevant five furlong draw data for this distance going back to 2017:

 

 

An edge to lower drawn horses would have been expected (see above) although, considering the course configuration, it is a relatively modest one. These are the types of percentages one would have expected given that lower draws are closest to the inside rail and, therefore, have the least distance to travel around the turn. Another measure of draw bias is to look at the percentage of rivals beaten (PRB) from each stall position. These figures correlate with the win percentages as you will see below:

 

 

Those drawn 1 or 2 have a clear edge over the rest of the stall positions. Between those two berths, they have accounted for 40 winners from 128 races (31.3% of all races). Further, their PRB figures are a very high 56% (horses drawn 1) and 58% (drawn 2). Finally on these two draws, they have combined to make a small profit to SP of £23.09 which equates to nearly 10p profit for every £1 bet.

 

Chelmsford City Racecourse 6 furlong Draw Bias

Moving up a furlong to six furlongs, the win percentages across the three thirds are very even (low 36.1%; middle 30.7%; high 33.2%). However, the PRB figures suggest the lowest third does retain some sort of an edge:

 

 

Likewise combining win and placed results suggest this small edge does exist:

 

 

All in all, given the choice, I’d rather be drawn very low than middle to high over 6f.

 

Chelmsford City Racecourse 7 furlong Draw Bias

The low third come out slightly better at this distance, too, with the PRB for the low third (inside draws) standing at 0.53 (53% of rivals beaten) versus the high third’s figure of 0.46 (46%). Anything above 0.55 is a material positive bias while anything below 0.45 is a negative bias.

 

Chelmsford City Racecourse 1 Mile Draw Bias

In my recent series of articles on draw bias, this mile trip was highlighted as having a relatively strong bias. Here are the draw splits in terms of win percentages:

 

 

Perhaps it's because mile races start in a chute and they race almost directly into a dogleg bend that figures are similar to the 5f statistics at this range, as are the PRB figures:

 

 

It seems therefore that over 5f and 1m - the two distances where the field races very quickly into a bend - we have a playable draw bias, albeit perhaps not of Chester proportions. Essentially over these two trips (and to a lesser extent over 6f and 7f), we would prefer a lower draw than a middle or high one. And especially if combined with a forward going run style.

For the remainder of this article I will be using all race data, not just 8+ runner handicaps.

 

Top Trainers at Chelmsford Racecourse

I have delved into trainer stats quite a lot recently and the advantage of all-weather tracks, from a punting perspective, is that each year there is a huge number of meetings. This gives a bigger data set and, when it comes to trainer stats, I think that is very important. There are 93 trainers who saddled 70 or more runners during the study period and here are the top 15 in terms of win strike rate. As I mentioned, this incorporates ALL races, both handicaps and non handicaps:

 

 

John Gosden at Chelmsford Racecourse

Five of the 15 trainers in the table have been profitable to SP. Seven have A/E indices in excess of 1.00, indicating that their runners have offer bettors some value. It is worth looking at a couple of these handlers in more detail, starting with the Gosden stable. Here are John's (and, more recently, with his son Thady) most noteworthy stats:

  1. Older horses (aged 4+) have provided ten winners from 22 (SR 45.5%) for a small profit of £5.17 (and a large ROI +23.5%).
  2. Horses priced 5/1 or shorter have produced a win% strike rate of 33.7% thanks to 67 winners from 199 runners. Backing all such runners would have yielded a small profit of £13.26 (ROI +6.7%). Compare this to horses 11/2 or bigger in price, where only two of the 79 runners won, producing disastrous losses of nearly 80 pence in the £.
  3. Frankie Dettori on Gosden runners at Chelmsford has won on 13 of his 26 mounts. How often they'll combine this winter remains to be seen, however.
  4. Gosden’s front runners have won 36.5% of their races, while those held up have won just 15.6%.

 

Richard Hughes at Chelmsford Racecourse

Richard Hughes has a very solid looking record with a one-in-five win ratio and an A/E index of 1.22. In fact, Hughes has been extremely consistent and this can be illustrated by comparing his A/E indices each year (see graph below):

 

 

All six years have been above the magic 1.00 figure. He looks a trainer to potentially follow at the course. Here are some of Hughes's strongest snippets:

  1. His record in handicaps is very good – 39 winners from 169 (SR 23.1%) for a very healthy profit of £73.29 (ROI +43.4%).
  2. Hughes is happy to put a claiming jockey on board his runners and they have performed marginally better than professional jockeys, with 19 wins from 84 (SR 22.6%) producing returns of 36p in the £.
  3. His biggest priced winner was 22/1 and he has had an even spread of winners across the price ranges. Horses priced 5/1 or shorter have been a good group for him, as with the Gosden stable; 36 wins from 117 runners (SR 30.8%) for a profit of £21.36 (ROI +18.3%).

 

Trainers to Beware at Chelmsford Racecourse

Before moving on, here are the trainers with the poorest win strike rates ( all below 7%). It is always worth being aware of trainers that struggle under certain circumstances:

 

 

It is interesting to see Richard Fahey in this list. Fahey is not usually a trainer seen this low down the pecking order, and it is not a short trip from North Yorkshire to the Essex showgrounds. Worryingly, he has had 56 runners that started in the top four of the betting and only six of them won. These runners would have produced losses of over 56 pence in the £.

Other notable names in the list are George Boughey and Robert Eddery, both of whose A/E figures are very weak.

 

Gender bias at Chelmsford Racecourse?

There has always been a slight gender bias when it comes to flat racing with male horses out-performing females. This bias has traditionally been slightly more pronounced in all-weather racing as compared to the turf. For whatever reason, it may not be as strong now as 15 to 20 years ago, but it does still exist, including at Chelmsford, as the table below indicates.

 

 

The differences may look relatively modest, but they are significant enough that we, as punters, should be aware of them. A lower strike rate would be forgiven in exchange for a higher ROI but, as can be seen, all data are less appealing than the male cohort. Additionally, when we break this data down further by age group we get the following:

 

 

Colts and geldings clearly outperform fillies at 2, 3 and 4 years old but, as the horses get older, it seems to level out.

The A/E indices back this up with excellent correlation with the strike rates:

 

 

It will be fascinating to see if any of the other courses display a similar pattern when it comes to age and gender.

 

Market factors at Chelmsford Racecourse

As we know the betting market is extremely efficient and favourites, for example, have a similar strike rate across all courses. Having said that, there are some differences that will become apparent over this series of individual racetrack articles. Let’s examine Chelmsford in more detail from a market perspective.

Firstly let me take a look at the win strike rates for different positions in the betting; starting with favourites and moving down to position 8th or lower:

 

 

A sliding scale, as one would expect, but the win percentage for favourites is slightly higher than the average for all flat courses (34.21% compared with an overall average of just under 33%). This graph also shows how rare it is for outsiders to be successful: those outside of the top five in the market have collectively won less than once every nine races; or, put another way, the top five in the betting win eight out of every nine races at Chelmsford on average.

A look at the A/E indices now:

 

 

The value clearly lies with the top two in the betting at Chelmsford, or has done so during the period of study at least. Favourites lost just 4p in the £ to SP and actually made a small profit to Betfair SP.

Two-year-old favourites have the best strike rate of all age groups at just under 41% and they have made a small profit of 4p in the £ to SP, though this may simply be coincidence. That said, if you singled out 2yo favourites that were also top rated on the Peter May speed ratings (published here on geegeez and available to research in Query Tool) you would have had 102 qualifiers, of which 48 won (SR 47.1%) for a healthy profit of £24.33 (ROI +23.9%). For the record, all 300 2yos that topped the speed ratings (regardless of market rank) also made a small blind profit which is impressive.

Before leaving the market / price data section, it should be noted that huge prices have a dismal record at the course. There have been 1969 horses priced 50/1 or bigger and just eight have won. Losses of £1445 would have occurred if backing them, which equates to over 73p in every 3 bet.

 

Who Are The Best Sires at Chelmsford City Racecourse?

A look at performance by sire at Chelmsford now. Here are the top ten sires in terms of strike rate since 2017 (150 runs or more to qualify):

 

 

The top two in the list, Dubawi and Lope De Vega, edged into profit but both have had a big-priced winner which has skewed their stats (Dubawi at 40/1 and Lope De Vega at 33/1). Three of the ten have A/E indices above 1.00, with four more just below that figure. These seven sires - Lope De Vega, Oasis Dream, Dark Angel, Lethal Force, Mastercraftsman, Dutch Art and Showcasing – are worth scrutinising when researching a race at Chelmsford. One other sire, not listed in the table above, has an A/E index of over 1.00 and that is Swiss Spirit. His figure of 1.02 is clearly decent (overall win strike rate stands at 10.7%) and he's another worth looking out for.

A sire that did not make the list due to insufficient progeny runs is Frankel. His record, though, is also worth sharing as he has hit a strike rate of 21.3% thanks to 27 winners from 127 runners.

I also looked briefly at the damsire data and remarkably, and perhaps significantly, Dubawi had the highest strike rate there, too (at 15.9%). Only two damsires have A/E indices of over 1.00 and they are Rock of Gibraltar (1.28) and Danehill (1.11).

 

Chelmsford Racecourse Horses for courses

Let me finish by looking at some horses that have excelled at Chelmsford since 2017. To qualify for the list they must have won at least four races at the track with a strike rate of 25% or more. Also they must have raced somewhere in the UK in 2022. Here are the horses that qualify. I have included a PRB column, too (Percentage of rivals beaten):

 

 

Krazy Paving, who heads the list, has also been placed a further three times at the track. Furthermore, he has the highest PRB figure, an impressive 0.81. Any horse in that list appearing at Chelmsford in the next few months is definitely worth at least a cursory glance, especially those with the highest PRB figures.

We all know racing is not a simple game – there is no easy shortcut to making long term profits. But I hope the statistics shared in this piece of research will be an aid to you when tackling races at Chelmsford in the near future. Please share any big successes with us in the future – my cut is only 25%! 😉

- DR

Punting Angles: Chelmsford City Racecourse Part 2

/in /by

In the previous article I focused on some angles for playing the polytrack at the Essex course at Chelmsford City, writes Jon Shenton. To be brutally honest, keeping the word count down to something sensible proved impossible and stumps were drawn as the light was fading late in the evening.

However, after a short break it’s time to pad up again, get back to the crease and finish building this meaningful innings. If you missed Part 1, or want to revisit it, you can do so here.

First up today, let’s look at some stallion data.

Stallion performance at Chelmsford

Using geegeez.co.uk’s Query Tool and evaluating all runs at Chelmsford with SP’s of 20/1 or shorter we get the following list of stallions with A/E values of greater than 1.00 (where they have had 100 runners or more).  The data is sorted in descending A/E order.

 

These articles have already discussed the merits of Lope De Vega progeny on all-weather surfaces, especially at Gosforth Park, Newcastle. That stallion also has a perfectly respectable Chelmsford record. Analysing “Lope” runners by race distance at Chelmsford gives the following picture:

 

There appears to be a distinct variance in performance between races of a mile or shorter and those longer than the 8-furlong trip. His progeny’s record beyond a mile is 4 wins from 33 whilst the numbers at up to a mile show a highly competent 18/72.

 

It’s not the most conclusive, or robust, angle in the portfolio but is worth tracking as it may develop into something a little more solid over time. If you have time, do re-visit Lope De Vega at Newcastle (see article link above), the stats are stronger for that course.

Top of the table is Medicean, so it would be impolite to move on without further reference to his progeny.  Again, here are the numbers based on race distance in the table below:

 

Like Lope De Vega, there is a split at around the mile distance: 6/47 at the longer trips and 20/92 over shorter.

Medicean retired from stud duties a couple of years ago so this angle has a limited shelf life, in truth it is probably reducing in relevance already. However, there are still winners to be had (Sharp Operator went in on the 24th September for example). It’s one to keep an eye on, rather than build as a cornerstone of a punting portfolio. Interesting yes, unmissable no.

 

5 furlong races

Let’s go back to the specific race distances, starting with the fast and furious five-furlong burn ups. The course map illustrates how they break near the bend at the end of the back straight.

Like some other courses I’ve evaluated in this series, the Chelmsford five has all the hallmarks of suiting a low drawn early pace speed merchant.

Evaluating in more detail using the tried and (semi) tested approach from part 1 sheds light on the hypothesis.

 

For those not familiar with the layout;  the table is a combination of draw bias in the left hand box (using the draw analyser IV3 numbers) and the Pace profile (Pace Analyser with IV) consolidated on one table on the right hand side, by number of runners in a given race.

For more detail on the numbers and what they mean I noticed Matt had addressed this particular subject in his “Silly Question Friday part 2” post, which you can find here.

The tables above cover all races over five furlongs at Chelmsford on Standard or Standard/Slow surfaces (very small number of events on the latter going) and relate to the actual stall position, not the drawn stall number (this simply adjusts for non-runners). It’s quite helpful that the maximum field size at this trip is 12 meaning there is a bit less eye-bleeding data manipulation to get through (secretly enjoyed!).

First impressions are that the bias is less apparent than I was expecting. In my mind I expected to see a sea of green to the left on the draw table (good) and an expansive pit of red on the right (bad).   Whilst there is undoubtedly a tendency towards those drawn on the inside, with stall 1 looking very healthy, it’s far from a binary profile. Plenty of animals are prevailing from wider stall positions. That said, the outside two stalls marginally underperform in almost all field sizes.

Pace, however, is much more clear cut. Shifting our gaze to the table on the right, we can see early leaders are universally green in nature with IV performance of a minimum of 1.5 in all cases. To be clear for those still not au fait with Impact Value (IV), that means early leaders are at least one-and-a-half times more likely to win than horses adopting other run styles.

Prominent runners fare reasonably well but those raced more steadily through the early stages generally have it all to do at the sharp end.

The main inference from these data, in reasonably strong terms, is that pace is of greater importance than stall position at five furlongs.

The best / easiest way of performing a quick check-in to see if this holds true is to use the heat map on draw analyser. In this case below I’ve taken data for field sizes of 8 and 9 (illustrating IV). However, it is straightforward to check other field sizes using the tool. As always drop me a note in the comments or on twitter if you need any guidance.

The exact numbers are always interesting; however, the colour coding shows you really what you need to know. The map does show that a low draw is perhaps more forgiving if an early leading position is not secured, but there is no doubt overall that ‘(early) pace wins the race’.

Whilst all of this is nice and makes perfect sense there is another side to the coin: the value side.

My pre-conceived belief was that low draws would be where the action is. When I wager at Chelmsford this is ingrained in my psyche and is always the first thing I look for. Whether this has been picked up through media talk, using Geegeez, or typically what I’ve seen at other tracks I’m not sure. But if I believed it, I surely can’t be the only one?

If I’m not alone then it’s highly possible that a low draw at Chelmo is in danger of being overbet. If the claim that pace is more important than draw holds true then maybe wider drawn, pacy animals are a great betting opportunity. Yes, sure, winners are more likely to be unearthed from lower stall positions, but perhaps the value is elsewhere with the market underestimating higher gate numbers.

The most effective way to check in the toolkit is to repeat the table format, but this time using the A/E number (again, details of A/E, Actual / Expected, can be found here). As with IV, the higher the number the better, with 1.00 being par performance (in a perfect world with no over-round for the bookies).

 

Interesting? The picture is choppy for sure, mainly due to the small datasets derived by analysing each stall position based on field size (manifesting a few zeroes, for example).

However, I’m confident that there is a greener hue to the right side of the table than the left; maybe not rainforest green but certainly including tinges of Kermit in comparison to the Bert-and-Ernie-like yellowness of the left-hand side.

This table is effectively confirming that the low stalls are broadly over-bet.

Taking stall one as an individual case study, in the first table in this section this berth has an IV3 of 1.28. It’s not a perfect measure but it sufficiently makes the point that winners are quite likely to originate from the inside box when compared to the average. The A/E comparison scores for stall one are all below that level (illustrated by the blue dotted outline), in some cases significantly.

The bottom line is that by backing trap one blindly in five-furlong races winners should be plentiful but cash will probably be conceded: the market has sussed it already.

To re-enforce / labour the point, below is a cut from the draw analyser which splits the draw into low/mid/high segments in field sizes of 8+.

The image confirms the assertion, namely generic low draws have an IV of 1.04 but an A/E of only 0.73. Conversely, high stall positions struggle in relative terms with IV (0.8) but have a higher A/E at 0.88.

However, when considering run style, we can see that those which led early – especially from wider out – have been very profitable to follow. Indeed, breaking fast from a wide draw may enable a horse to cut the first corner and carry more speed into that turn.

 

What does that mean? Simply that value can be found in the wider stall positions when there is early pace thereabouts.

In conclusion, with regards to the Chelmsford five-furlong range:

  • Finding the early leader (or at least a horse that is prominent) is the key factor in establishing a likely winner of the race
  • A lower drawn horse is more likely to prevail over the distance; however, there is evidence that the market overcompensates for the low draw.
  • A horse drawn in a middle to high stall is more likely to generate a long-term profit, especially if able to show early speed.

 

6 furlong races

Moving up by a furlong to the three quarters of a mile trip, runners start well down the back straight, thus giving jockeys and horses more time and room to sort out their positions before the bend. The maximum field size over this distance is 14. However, there have only been 31 races with a combined 13 or 14 runners so I’m going to leave these on the bench for the data analysis.

 

The table shows that, arguably, the bias over six towards low stalls is stronger than that over five. Most of the stall 1 and 2 data is green in nature, indicating that winners are more likely to originate from those positions than anywhere else. This holds true particularly well where there are 9 or fewer horses taking part.

Where there are ten or more participants the picture is less clear. It may be related to sample size (22 races with 12 runners compared to say 60 with 8 entrants), or it may be related to greater scope for congestion; but there isn’t anything too obvious – in my mind at least – to explain why the larger field sizes shape differently.

One thing that is not open to question is the effect of pace on the outcome of six-furlong races: yet again, being at the front end early pays handsomely.

Based on both the draw and pace details you’d expect a low drawn trailblazer to be of primary interest and, whilst that is true, as with the minimum trip pace seems to be the kingmaker. The heat map below shows IV performance for field sizes of 8-10, and is unambiguous in terms of how most winners race.

 

In this case the low drawn early speed combination appears to be almost unbeatable, but the enduring message is that if a runner is held up, dropped in or generally in the hustle and bustle of midfield it’s a big ask to pass the speed horses.

The same assertion made for five furlongs about lower draws being overbet could hold true over this course and distance too. I did repeat the full table treatment but for the sake of brevity here is the same broad-brush view covering all field sizes that have been analysed.

It’s the same story again, low draw equals higher overall probability of winning (IV 1.18) but the A/E doesn’t match it at 0.81.  But overlaying pace onto the equation is the route to profit, especially away from the ‘obvious’ inside berths.

A footnote on Pace

This may or not be of interest to some of you but it’s worthy of inclusion in my view.  When I started working with pace there was something gnawing away that didn’t sit right with me.

It comes down to the fact that any given race there is only one horse that is tagged as led/leader and there can be several tagged as held up, mid-division or prominent.

It is logical horses that also-rans are far more likely to be contained within the held up (or mid-division) classification. They start near the back and stay near the back! Could it be, then, that these no-hopers skew the data for the off-the-pace categories and in fact a quality hold up horse has the same chance of winning as a quality front-running animal?

To scratch this itch, analysing the performance of favourites by how they are ridden is a logical method. And what better way to do it than by evaluating the five- and six-furlong races at Chelmsford contained in this article?

The below table shows the performance of favourites in sprint races by early run style:

The pace aspect holds up! Leader favourites outperform the market with an A/E of 1.27 and a whopping IV of 3.89! Those market toppers which are dropped in have an A/E of just 0.62, which equates to a negative 40% ROI. Ouch. These data satisfactorily allayed my own curiosity and fears, anyway!

That about wraps up this Chelmsford two-parter covering as it has trainers, sires, and delving into races over 5, 6, 7 and 8 furlongs in fine detail. I hope you’ve found at least of something of use.

The regularity of racing at the all-weather tracks means data are more readily available than their turf counterparts and I’d fully recommend the geeky/curious amongst you to get stuck in to analysing racing on the artificial surfaces as a starting point.

  • JS