Posts

[REPLAY] The Racecards & Form Tools Web TV Show

Last night, I broadcast the second in a series of four web TV shows. The quartet aims to help geegeez.co.uk readers - now viewers - get to grips with the power housed inside Geegeez Gold. And, also, to improve as punters in a more general sense.

The first one, recorded last Sunday evening, was on the general approach to betting and can be watched here.

Last night's show is viewable directly in this page from the link below. In it, I cover:

- Racecard icons and customization
- When to use the breeding/sales icon
- What to look for with the trainer icon
- How H2H can help understand the 'hierarchy of the herd'
- How to slice and dice trainer, jockey and sire performance history
- Proximity form as an alternative to finishing position
- Setting up Instant Expert, and the limited data red box trap
- Pace, especially setups to be aware of
- Draw on the all weather, and those advantaged and disadvantaged
- and a fair bit more besides

It's bang on 90 minutes long, and you don't need to watch it all in one sitting; but I recommend you watch it. I think it will improve your understanding of our awesome Gold toolkit. Click the video below and take notes!

Matt

p.s. you can use the full screen 'square' icon bottom right on the recording to increase the size of the video box.

 

[REPLAY] The ‘Getting Started’ Web TV Show

The Laughing Gnome or Richard Johnson after nine cups of coffee..?

Last night I presented a live broadcast via the wwww. (wonderful world wide web).

It was about 'getting started'.

Actually it was about a lot more than that, and doubtless has some value regardless of where you're at with your betting and/or whether you're a geegeez subscriber or not.

It runs for 90 minutes but you can watch the whole thing in 45 minutes to an hour...

You see, I'm not used to doing this sort of thing, and one observation I have of myself is that my delivery was probably marginally slower than ideal.

Happily, youtube has this covered with a 'speed' control bottom right [click the little cog wheel to access the control].

Here, you can choose to watch me at 1.5x (where I sound like Richard Johnson on a caffeine high) or even 2x (where I invoke the spirit of David Bowie's Laughing Gnome)... or good ol' normal speed, where I sound like me, only a bit more nasal (seasonal snots, sigh).

The show covers:
- "The Art of the Possible"
- Mindset
- Staking
- Time
- Overwhelm
- "The process"
- and an overview of the Geegeez Gold platform

And you can watch it below.

p.s. this is your LAST CHANCE to get the discounted Winter Gold season ticket, OR annual discount, OR trial month then current monthly price. From Wednesday morning, the offer is closed and the monthly cost rises for anyone not already locked in to existing pricing structure.

Don't say you weren't warned! Here's the link to get in before the doors close.

Gold Upgrades are LIVE…

We are this week introducing some exciting new features to Gold. As always, we anticipate that there might be a few early teething problems but, with your help and forbearance, we'll have everything bedded in by the end of the week, ready for the big races (King George, Goodwood, Galway) that follow.

So what are the changes? Good question, and I'm glad you asked...

There are three main areas that will be brought on stream during this week, as follows:

Choosing the right races to play

Racecard Filters

I don't know if you've noticed but there seems to be quite a lot of racing these days. Even race-to-race punters have their work cut out trying to keep tabs with the plethora of punting puzzles placed before them/us. So we thought - and it's thanks to Rory Delargy for the suggestion - we'd introduce some filters to help you cut to the chase, or the all weather sprint handicap, or whichever type of race you're particularly interested in.

Here's how they look:

New racecard filters will display only the races you are interested in

New racecard filters will display only the races you are interested in

If you focus on sprint handicaps, just change the 'to' distance dropdown to 6f (or 7f or wherever your 'sprint' cutoff is) and ping the hcap switch on the right hand end. Voila! Sprint handicaps only. Only want the good stuff? No problem, change the 'to' dropdown under class to 3 (or 2 or 1) and presto, the good stuff.

Changed your mind and want all of it? There's a reset link top right. Not interested in all of this newfangled convolution? Click 'hide filters' and they'll be gone forever. Or at least until you click 'show filters'.

I appreciate these filters don't cover every eventuality: for instance, we could have differentiated for NH race type, or by age eligibility, or added presets for 'sprints', 'staying chases' and so on. But, you know, you can't please all the people all the time. Hopefully this is at least a step in the right direction, and perhaps just the ticket.

Settings are remembered, so if you only ever look at such races, they can be all you ever see in Geegeez Gold. Naturally, the power is entirely with you to flesh the shortlist out, or to abandon it altogether.

And, importantly I think, the default is that the filters are hidden apart from the link to show them. Many users won't want such functionality and we don't feel the traditional presentation is especially broken, so in that regard we'll not try to fix it for those already happy. If you, like me, are a tinkerer, however, hit the show filters link and muck about a bit!

Racecard Views

Hitherto, we've had two views of the world: a full (i.e. traditional) breakdown by meeting, and a compact version, with tiles containing the race times. We've slightly tweaked them for the purposes of the filters, and also added a third view, by time. That one looks like this:

Racecards by time, with filters applied

Racecards by time, with filters applied

 

In  the example above, I've filitered by Class (1-5), by runners (8+) and by distance (5f-7f). I've also selected handicaps only. And hot diggity, there's my shortlist of three races - from a longlist of 42! - to go at. Uncluttered, no time investment to get there, just simply what you need without distraction.

 

Course Info

There is one small but useful change on the main cards, which is the addition of links to 'Course Info' on the right side of the meeting title:

Course Info links appear to the right for all UK racecourses - Irish courses coming soon

Course Info links appear to the right for all UK racecourses - Irish courses coming soon

 

And the actual info pages look like this:

 

Quite useful, hopefully.

 

Hide the odds

One other thing on views. Actually, on no views. We've added an option to hide the odds from the cards for those who like to form their opinions 'blind' to the market, as requested by Neil O'Connor. It's a really good way of not being influenced by other people and focusing on your own work; and I'd actually recommend to anyone with the time that reviewing one race a day in this manner will improve your judgement enormously.

Here's the option, found under Options on My Geegeez (which is found in the top right of the main website menu bar):

Remember to click UPDATE after making changes!

Remember to click UPDATE after making changes!

 

The cards then look like this:

No right side odds column. Odds also removed from Instant Expert, Pace, and Odds tabs. Reinstate from My Geegeez

No right side odds column. Odds also removed from Instant Expert, Pace, and Odds tabs. Reinstate from My Geegeez

Odds are also hidden on Instant Expert, Pace, and Odds tabs. They can be reinstated from the My Geegeez options.

 

Draw on Instant Expert

One more small change on the cards, this time to Instant Expert, where we've added in a draw column - it was requested by at least half a dozen users, so no names but thank you for the suggestion! That's pretty handy when you've established a probable draw bias and want to see which horses are otherwise best suited to conditions.

Your first 30 days for just £1

For example, there seems to be a low bias over six on fast ground at Catterick. In the 5.10 race, all the horses best suited to conditions are drawn high. With plenty of pace low, could this race be set for an upset?

A new draw column - Dr - has been introduced to Instant Expert

A new draw column - Dr - has been introduced to Instant Expert

OK, what else?

 

Report Tweaks: Deeper Insights

Reports are still reports, the data remains exactly the same, but... we've added a bell and a whistle.

Historical performance

The bell is a little ^ dropdown on the left hand side which, when clicked, shows the line-by-line historical performance for a given report entry. Here's an example taken from the one year view on the Trainer Jockey Combo report today.

Clicking the ^ (blue box, left side) reveals the historical performance data in the larger blue box below. Clicking anywhere in the actual R O'Brien-Chris Hayes row reveals their runner(s) today (green boxes). Simple, and even more illuminating than our reports already were!

Historical performance data can be viewed inside certain reports as of this week

Historical performance data can be viewed inside certain reports as of this week

 

This feature is available on the following reports:

  • Trainer Statistics
  • Jockey Statistics
  • Trainer/Jockey Combination Statistics
  • Trainer Handicap 1st Run [Code]
  • Trainer Change
  • Trainer 2yo 1st Start
  • Sire Snippets
  • Trainer Snippets

 

Export to csv

The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed the other tweak, the aforementioned whistle. It is the ability to drop any chosen sub-report (e.g. TJ Combo 1 Year view) into a spreadsheet for further manipulation. Here's an example of how that looks:

Gold users can now export report data to csv for further inspection

Gold users can now export report data to csv for further inspection

The left side of the data (columns A-K) show the overall performance on the report (in this case, Trainer/Jockey Combo), and the right side (columns L-V) shows details relating to the qualifiers for that given entity (e.g. that trainer and jockey combination, in this example).

And what of the third part of this release? Perhaps we've saved the best for last...

 

QT Angles: Could this permanently change the game for you?

This piece of work has been difficult, and I don't think we're fully there yet; but we are in sufficiently good shape to let you have at it if you so wish. QT stands for Query Tool and it's our rudimentary analysis tool. I say 'rudimentary', because there are more extensive options out there, like horseracebase.com for example, which is excellent.

But I wanted to bring a user's work into his or her racecard display, front and centre. And that's where QT Angles comes in. In time, it could be the game changer. It's actually a three part piece, which starts - naturally enough - in the Query Tool. Once you've researched an angle - simple example below - you can save it as an Angle.

Step 1 - Research angle:

Step 2 - Save to ANGLES:

Choose a name, and click 'Add Angle'. To view upcoming runners, click 'View Runners'.

Once you are happy with a query, save it by adding a name and clicking Add Angle. View upcoming runners with the View Runners button.

Once you are happy with a query, save it by adding a name and clicking Add Angle. View upcoming runners with the View Runners button.

 

Step 3 - Check out all your Angle runners in the QT Angles report:

View your daily qualifiers in the QT Angles report

View your daily qualifiers in the QT Angles report

 

Step 4a - Check 'em out on the racecard (below is a work in progress).

Step 4b - Forgot what the Angle name means? It happens, that's why if you hover over the angle we'll remind you:

 

It's all very cool, and nearly there. We're going to do something which is largely frowned upon - normally for good reason - and introduce this in 'beta'. That means we know it's imperfect at this stage, but it is close enough to where we want it to allow you to play. More importantly, we need your feedback to iron out any remaining wrinkles. So do have a play if it's your kind of thing.

**

These items will be rolling out over the next couple of days, so don't panic if you're a Gold user and can't see them right away. I will make an announcement on twitter - follow @geegeez_uk - when they've landed.

USER GUIDE

I make no apology for the 'shouty' headline. Over the past few years, I've personally invested weeks of effort into creating a well referenced and comprehensive user guide for Geegeez Gold. It now runs to 99 pages. Importantly, it has a list of contents in the front from which you should very quickly be able to find the bit you need.

Please please PLEASE look in there first before asking your question.

If you don't, my customer service - which will always guide you to the relevant page - may occasionally be inflected with language betraying my exasperation! Geegeez is the best racing community in our lands precisely because we give you the wherewithal to support yourselves further than anyone else, and trust in your ability to do that.

THE LATEST VERSION (v1.7) CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE. If you're reading this page later than July 2018, do check My Geegeez for a potentially more current version.

I don't believe in spoon-feeding, and I know you (mostly) don't want/need that. We're all about empowerment, through data and through support documentation and videos. On the latter point, I'll be doing some more videos, but my voice is suffering along with just about every other part of me just now, so I'm not exactly sure when. Very soon is my aim.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy this next instalment of Geegeez Gold.

Matt

p.s. if you're not a Gold'er and never have been, you can take a £1 month trial here. Former Gold subscribers may re-subscribe through the same link. Good luck!

**

27th July Update

A quick update as at 9am on 27th July. The following are now live:

- Racecard menu filters
- Racecard 'by time' view option
- Draw on Instant Expert
- Option to hide odds on cards
- New style reports for Trainer Stats, Jockey Stats, TJ Combo, HC1, 2yo 1st Start, Trainer Change, Trainer Snippets, Sire Snippets
- QT Angles in Query Tool
- QT Angles report

We have a few known issues, as follows:
- Selecting 'show filters' on racecard menu page defaults the view to 'by time'. Will be changed to 'by meeting'
- The new reports don't currently have an odds column for the qualifying runners
- Selecting 'fractional odds' on My Geegeez displays decimal odds. (So does selecting 'decimal odds'!)
- We've still to put live the new Trainer and Sire Snippets reports
- We've still to put live the QT Angles inline in the racecards
- Odds are missing from the QT Angles report
- We've still to switch over the Report Angles functionality to pull from the new reports

These last two will not be addressed this side of Goodwood. We have a nice stable version of the site just now, so let's not push our luck! I really hope you enjoy, and find utility, in these recent additions.

If you find anything else, please do let us know. Thanks!

Nursery Nuggets: Betting in 2yo Handicaps

Introduction

On 5th July the first of more than two hundred nurseries - 2yo handicaps -  programmed for 2018 was staged, at Haydock Park. They are a feature of the second half of the calendar year and, due to the unexposed nature of many of the runners, have often been considered off limits to large swathes of punters.

But nursery handicaps are just like any other group of races: they have distinct characteristics which require a primary focus in certain key areas. Happily, there are plenty of data on which to chew and from which to attempt to draw meaningful inferences.

In this post, I'm going to focus on nurseries since 2014 - four years' worth - and in the UK only. I'll exclude the five races already run in 2018 at time of writing, so we have complete years from 2014 to 2017.

During that time 8618 runners contested 972 races, none of which culminated in a dead heat. There are therefore 972 winners in the sample. Average field size can quickly be calculated as 8.67, meaning plenty of opportunities for each way punters (609 of the 972 races had eight or more runners). Let us try to determine some characteristics which separate the winners from much of the rest of their fields. To do that we'll start with an old adage I heard in my formative punting years, but first some context...

 

"Back the top weight in 2yo handicaps"

I don't know who first coined this, or why. It is predicated on good sense inasmuch as horses tend to win handicap races in descending order of weight rank. That is, the highest weighted horse wins most often, the second highest weighted horse wins next most often, and so on. But nothing so straightforward was ever missed by the market, meaning backing top weights in handicaps will send you skint quicker than an afternoon playing find the lady on a grubby street corner.

Ignoring those races - amateur riders and the like - where horses are asked to carry in excess of ten stone (the pattern is the same), the below shows the effect of weight carried on win percent in all flat handicaps in UK between 2014 and 2017.

Win strike rate in UK flat handicaps, 2014 to 2017, by weight carried

Win strike rate in UK flat handicaps, 2014 to 2017, by weight carried

 

That is what one might call a pretty robust correlation. More weight equals a greater chance of winning. But here's how that chart looks when expressed as return on investment at starting price...

Return of investment at SP in UK flat handicaps 2014-17, by weight carried

Return on investment at SP in UK flat handicaps 2014-17, by weight carried

 

What this basically tells us is that, ignoring the most lightly weighted horses, there is a vague consistency in losses down to around 8-04 (eight stone four pounds). In other words, although more weight equates to more winners, from a betting perspective it amounts to similar losses almost regardless of the equine's impost.

[In the image above, I hovered over a data point merely to illustrate that further intel can be gleaned from these charts; there is no specific relevance of highlighting the 9-13 group of horses].

The above preamble is intended as context for what follows, namely a similar perspective on nursery handicaps. This is how the diffusion of weight affects a horse's chance of winning in such races:

UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17, performance by weight carried [max 9-07]

In the image this time, I've included one of the variables on the left hand side, so you can see I've truncated the weight range at 9-07. This is because there are a handful of runners which carried more than that, some of which won at 100% (i.e. one from one), thus skewing the line.

We can see the trend generally follows the 'all age' flat handicaps superset. Below is the impact of weight on ROI in nursery handicaps, and as can be seen it offers a far less clear picture:

ROI by weight in UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17

ROI by weight in UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17

 

Not only do lower weighted horses win less often, they also lose more cash. Meanwhile, at the top end of the weight spectrum, we have a couple of spikes either side of nine stone that creep comfortably north of break even. Of course, in the general sense it's not especially helpful because there's no reason why horses carrying 9-01 should be more profitable than those carrying 9-00: it's just a quirk of the data.

But there is something of an ROI cliff at around the eight stone mark, and horses carrying less weight than that in nurseries can generally be treated with contempt. The reality is that many of them are simply not good enough to ever win such a race, perhaps any race.

Getting back to our "back top weights in nursery handicaps" starting point, the next chart shows win strike rate and return on investment (SP) by weight rank:

Win percent and ROI by weight rank, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17

Win percent and ROI by weight rank, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-17

 

Ignoring the obvious outlier (rank #19) with its big priced winner, the blue bars show how win strike rate diminishes as we drop down the weights; and the orange bars show how one would have lost less by sticking to the higher weighted runners.

As interesting as this may (or may not) be, it is academic for those of us looking to butter our bread. As with absolute weight, so weight rank confirms that one will lose money more slowly rather than win money following higher rated, and therefore weighted, horses.

 

The value of experience in nursery performance

All juveniles intending to run in nursery handicaps must have either won their first two races or run at least three times. In both cases, the lack of racecourse evidence and/or experience can lead to horses improving significantly as they strengthen up and get the hang of things. And, yes, as they are presented with a test for which they might have been bred.

We can examine the bearing this has on nursery handicaps by looking at performance by number of career runs. Here, received wisdom says that a horse's best chance of winning may be when stepping into handicap company for the first time. But the data do not bear that out:

 

Nursery handicap debutants (0) win at a rate of 10.77%, whereas those having their fourth nursery start or more win 13.1% of the time. Those with intermediate levels of experience win incrementally more. There is then a correlation between amount of handicap experience and an increased win chance. But what of profitability?

 

Here, an interesting picture begins to emerge, although still somewhat ambiguous. Looking at exchange prices, we can see that not only are those with more nursery experience more likely to win but, unlike those carrying bigger weights, they are also profitable to follow (at exchange prices).

Greater experience in nursery handicaps should be considered a plus for a horse.

 

The virtue of ratings

Although there are occasional blind spots in the public consciousness such as, arguably, the benefit of experience in nurseries, a better way to get an edge is to create or derive some information not available to the masses. That could be a system, methodology or a set of ratings.

Geegeez Gold publishes Peter May's 'SR' ratings under license and they reveal some interesting things in the context of nursery handicaps. This next chart shows nursery win rate by SR rating rank:

Win strike rate by SR rank, UK nursery handicaps 2014-17

Win strike rate by SR rank, UK nursery handicaps 2014-17

 

Your first 30 days for just £1

The top rated horse in nursery handicaps in the four year study period won 18.44% of the time for an SP profit of - drumroll please - 0.95 points! While nobody ever went skint taking a profit, an ROI of 0.1% is more for your institutional investors than us profit-minded adrenaline junkies.

But it is a pretty good starting point to look at thing like race distance, weight, going, field size, market rank and class. One needs to be a little careful not to fit the story around the data, but it might be reasonable to assume that shorter distances - and therefore more consistently truly run races - would fare better from a rating perspective (when that rating has both a speed and form element within it). Likewise, perhaps bigger fields should yield better results for the same reason. And, based on earlier conclusions, those carrying more weight may be expected to at least win more often if not show a profit. Finally, perhaps ratings will manifest themselves as a marketable differentiator of class.

SR and Race Distance

Starting with race distance, we get some credence to the 'shorter distances are better' perception, as follows:

Top-rated SR, by race distance, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-2017

Top-rated SR, by race distance, UK nursery handicaps, 2014-2017

 

The pure sprinters at five furlongs have won almost one in four when top-rated, and have been profitable to back blindly to boot. Indeed, taking all sprint race distances - which I generally classify as seven furlongs or shorter - we see a pleasing hit rate, supported by a solid place strike rate, and a solid ROI:

Runs Wins Places Win % EW % Win PL EW PL ROI A/E IV
708 137 288 19.4 40.7 69.66 1.64 9.84 1.02 1.73

 

SR and Weight Carried

Next we can see the distribution of top rated nursery runners by weight carried. Top weight in such races is generally allocated 9-07, and it is interesting (though not altogether surprising) to note the strong coincidence of top weight - which equates to top official rating - and top SR rating.

Distribution of top-rated SR nursery runners, by weight, UK 2014-2017

Distribution of top-rated SR nursery runners, by weight, UK 2014-2017

 

But what of profitability? Here, an interesting anomaly emerges:

Impact of weight carried on top-rated SR horses, UK nursery handicaps 2014-2017

Impact of weight carried on top-rated SR horses, UK nursery handicaps 2014-2017

 

Those 9-07 horses, with their confluence of top public and private ratings, are notably unprofitable to follow. My assumption for this relates to the public element - that is, officially top-rated - and to the aforementioned 'back top weights in nursery handicaps' mantra espoused by so many for so long.

What is more interesting is that immediately below the top rated/top weighted, there is a full stone range in the weights where backing top SR runners yields both a high strike rate and an SP profit. Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with discounting the top weights: the pursuit of sustainable profit is rooted in sensible logical analysis. Conveniently discounting strands that don't fit is a surefire way to secure disappointing outcomes thereafter!

 

SR and Going

I struggled with this one a fair bit when I saw the output. Why? Because there is a correlation in the data that looks plausible. But I just cannot find a way to explain it. Here's what I mean:

Top SR in UK nurseries, 2014 to 2017, by going

Top SR in UK nurseries, 2014 to 2017, by going

The firm ground category consists of six runners, of which none won (as you can see from the above), but five were placed! Good to firm and good ground have produced slightly lower win strike rates than slower surfaces but the place strike rates are broadly comparable, leading to my discomfort in 'conveniently' excluding faster turf.

Lawns on the soft side of good or slower, and all weather surfaces, have been highly profitable. I will leave it to the reader to attempt to justify quick turf runner excommunication...

 

SR and field size

What of field size? My hypothesis is that bigger fields, and therefore more reliably run races, should yield better results, in terms of profit if not strike rate (there obviously being more horses to beat in the latter case). The data don't really support the hypothesis, however:

Runners Runs Wins Places Win % EW % Win PL EW PL ROI A/E IV
2-5 114 39 59 34.21 51.75 5.98 -4.84 5.25 1.15 1.53
6-8 326 68 142 20.86 43.56 6.87 -29.74 2.11 1.06 1.47
9-12 364 51 135 14.01 37.09 -6.90 -56.51 -1.90 0.84 1.44
13+ 118 12 33 10.17 27.97 -5.00 -10.37 -4.24 0.84 1.46

 

We would of course expect strike rate to diminish as the number of runners increases; but the theory of more truly run races leading to better results for top SR horses holds little water, notwithstanding that all runner groups are within fine margins of break even one side or the other. In short, there's little of positive or negative utility in field size.

 

SR and class

My premise with regards to class is that the ratings may fare better in better class races; the rationale is that in such races, where many unexposed recent winners or good grade placers lock horns, the winner may be underestimated by the market but not by a private handicap (which is, in essence, what any set of 'unofficial' ratings are).

This time the theory does seem to stand a test.

 

Class Runs Wins Places Win % EW % Win PL EW PL ROI A/E IV
2 91 16 37 17.58 40.66 28.08 36.91 30.86 1.25 1.73
3 77 19 32 24.68 41.56 11.17 -3.20 14.51 1.18 1.77
4 195 42 83 21.54 42.56 3.28 -23.84 1.68 1.02 1.53
5 291 52 113 17.87 38.83 -40.20 -78.02 -13.81 0.96 1.57
6 268 41 104 15.3 38.81 -1.38 -33.31 -0.51 0.84 1.63

 

Without wanting to get too unequivocal, there are some strong looking patterns. Actual versus Expected, a measure of the value proposition (more info here), slides in a linear manner from best class to worst, with Class 2 to 4 offering degrees of positive expectation.

In profit terms, all bar Class 5 have made a surplus at exchange odds, and even the 40 point-losing at SP Class 5 fares close to even at exchange prices. A focus on better races looks a beneficial means of deploying the Peter May SR figures in nurseries.

 

SR and the market

There are so many ways to slice and dice the dataset, and one more is to overlay market information: odds and / or odds rank.

Odds Runs Wins Places Win % EW % Win PL EW PL ROI A/E IV
Odds on 20 14 16 70 80 3.79 2.50 18.95 1.18 3.78
Evs to 2/1 100 39 62 39 62 -1.41 -16.39 -1.41 1 2.78
85/40 to 7/2 200 59 109 29.5 54.5 32.07 13.87 16.04 1.15 2.37
4/1 to 6/1 237 32 88 13.5 37.13 -48.50 -100.73 -20.46 0.8 1.25
13/2 to 10/1 213 15 61 7.04 28.64 -77.00 -118.82 -36.15 0.64 0.66
11/1 to 18/1 112 9 27 8.04 24.11 20.00 16.00 17.86 1.16 0.8
20/1 + 62 4 11 6.45 17.74 65.00 85.25 104.84 1.7 0.73

 

This is quite interesting, there appear to be three distinct areas: a profitable and high strike rate top of the market; an under-performing mid-market, in both profit and strike rate terms; and a surprisingly robust 'long tail' for those who can suffer losing runs in the pursuit of big winners.

The thirteen winners priced at 11/1 or bigger SP paid an additional 109.94 points at Betfair SP. Even taking out the 50/1 scorer (95 BSP), Celestine Abbey, still leaves 64.94 extra units of profit at BSP. But anyway, if you're backing the rags, why would you exclude the best of them?!

 

Conclusions / Pulling it all together

From the beginning of July to the end of the calendar year, there is a nursery handicap - or two, or three - almost every day. Knowing how to play the odds specifically for such races is an edge most punters don't bother to look for; and it is one where a few rules of thumb may help separate out a lot of the losing chaff.

The first relates to weight: those horses carrying eight stone or less won less than 5% of the time, and lost a massive 57% of stakes at SP across 356 runners. The story is broadly similar longer term: since 2009, 58 from 1142 were able to win (5.08%) for an ROI of -43.46%. Ouch.

Treat nursery runners carrying eight stone or less with grave suspicion.

In terms of experience, more is definitely better, both in terms of winning chance and profitability. In the four year sample period, it was shown that horses won more often with each additional run in nursery handicaps and, moreover, that with at least two prior nursery starts were profitable to back at exchange prices.

Favour experienced handicappers in nurseries.

So far so generic. But still, using nothing more than a daily paper, you ought to be able to find qualifiers for a system - more than eight stone, more than three prior nursery runs - that has made a profit of 27.46 points at starting price and an enormous 251.9 points at Betfair SP in the four year review period.

How can Geegeez Gold's ratings assist?

We've seen earlier in this article how our SR figures are most effective in shorter races, specifically at up to seven furlongs. Back top rated SR horses carrying more than eight stone at distances of seven furlongs or shorter has yielded 136 winners from 689 runners (19.74%) and a profit at SP of 71.66 points. I don't have the exchange data yet, sadly, but this group includes the two biggest priced winners from the 11/1+ analysis above, those two being worth an additional 51.31 points at Betfair SP. So let's be conservative and call it 150 points profit on 689 bets (21.77% ROI).

I couldn't justify logically leaving those 9-07 top weights out, but if you can, you might be able to replicate the better historical rate of 114 from 585 for 102.67 points at SP. <<< Caveat emptor: you need to be comfortable that there's a legitimate reason to exclude the top weights.

Focus on top-rated SR horses at distances up to and including seven furlongs.

Going was likewise difficult to assimilate: the data say strongly that top-rated SR's perform best on softer than good or all weather surfaces, but there is no obvious reason why faster surfaces should yield lower strike rates and poorer ROI's. Of course, the fact that we geegeez.co.uk licenses the ratings means they are 'black box' to us and, therefore, that we/I cannot discount that there is something in the algorithm to support what those data say. I'm still struggling though...

It may pay to focus on softer turf and all weather...

Those are three solid guiding principles which are worth committing to memory/the notebook:

1. Treat nursery runners carrying eight stone or less with grave suspicion.

2. Favour experienced handicappers in nurseries.

3. Focus on top-rated SR horses at distances up to and including seven furlongs.

For fun, and as something to add to my QT Angles watch list (facility coming soon, I promise!), I'm going to add the following which may make more experienced punters cringe even though I hope I've sufficiently explained/excused/caveated/apologised for each element in what preceded:

- More than eight stone and less than 9-07 (top weight generally)
- Top-rated on SR
- Seven furlongs or shorter
- Softer than good, or all weather

It looks very good, but it may be that the veneer hides something less credible. Please handle with care...

Year Runs Wins Places Win % EW % Win PL EW PL ROI A/E IV
2014 86 16 35 18.6 40.7 86.70 96.92 100.81 1.04 1.66
2015 107 26 45 24.3 42.06 6.55 -2.16 6.12 1.26 2.17
2016 86 16 34 18.6 39.53 25.16 15.42 29.26 1 1.75
2017 114 30 53 26.32 46.49 40.09 36.41 35.17 1.42 2.33
ALL
393
88
167
22.39
42.5
158.5
146.59
40.33
1.2
2.02

I will personally also manually check for levels of experience when such runners crop up, as we don't currently have such variables in our Query Tool.

**

Nursery handicaps are a significant part of the flat programme book in the second part of the season, and I hope that the above has offered a few morsels worthy of consideration when playing such races.

Good luck!

Matt

p.s. this post was put together primarily with the aid of Geegeez Gold's Query Tool, which enables users to ask questions of our database and to display the answers to those questions in numerous table or chart output formats. Gold subscribers can try Query Tool here.

Non-Gold subscribers can register a free account here, or sign up for a trial (or renew a previous subscription) here.

The Importance of Pace in 5f Handicaps: Part 4

After hours, actually weeks of number crunching, I am able to share my most recent findings regarding pace in 5f handicaps, writes Dave Renham.

In this fourth article I have started to look in more detail at the Geegeez pace data focusing for the most part on the last four runs of each horse. Links to the first three articles are here:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Horses on the Geegeez racecard have pace figures assigned to their last four runs, with the most recent run to the left. To recap the pace figures are split into four groups - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. Pace points are given to each group - led gets 4 points, prominent 3, mid division 2 and held up 1. Therefore totals can range between 4 and 16.

My focus for this piece has been 5f handicaps (turf and all weather) with at least 6 runners from 2017. There were 465 such races in total and at present I have manually collated data for 200 of these, from which I will share my initial findings. The plan next month is to complete the research and report back on the results for all the races. Handicaps are generally the best medium for this type of research because one is usually dealing with seasoned campaigners who have raced many times in their careers.

I have noted before that front runners have a significant edge in these short sprints and this is clearly seen from the pace figures of these 200 winners:

 

Pace figure of winner

4

3

2

1

Win % 25% 43.5% 8%

23.5%

 

As we can see 25% of all races have been won by the horse that took the early lead. Considering front runners made up around 13% of runners in the sample, we can say that front runners have won nearly twice as often as they should (25% versus 13%); this is assuming all horses have an equal chance in each race. Of course, that may not necessarily be the case, but the 13% figure is not going to be too far away from the true chance. For the record, prominent racers provided 40% of all horses so this pace bracket also win slightly more often than ‘one would expect’; horses that raced mid-division provided around 13% of all runners so have under-performed statistically, as have hold up horses who provided around 34% of all the runners.

As I have mentioned in previous articles, with such an advantage in 5f handicaps it makes sense to investigate ways of trying to predict the front runner. In the third article I looked at the most recent race only and the pace figure gained from it. This time I am going to look at the performance of the top-rated pace runners using the last four races.

In each of the 200 races I collated the pace figures for each horse by putting them in order of pace points, then looking to see from which pace position the winner came. I was hoping of course to see a bias towards the top-rated pace horses in terms of number of wins.

Here are the findings:

 

Pace rank

Wins

Races

SR%

1 26 200 13.0
2 21 200 10.5
3 26 200 13.0
4 31 200 15.5
5 23 200 11.5
6 17 200 8.5
7 21 179 11.7
8 10 153 6.5
9 10 127 7.9
10 4 96 4.2
11 7 68 10.3
12 2 48 4.2
13 1 32 3.1
14 1 22 4.5

15+

0 9

0.0

 

Hence the top-rated pace horse (the one with the most pace points) won 26 of the 200 races (13%). On the face of it this does look a little disappointing. It should also be stressed at this point that there may have been 200 races, but due to several of these having joint top-rated pace horses, there were in fact 266 horses that were top- or joint-top ranked.

That brings the win strike rate down to under 10%. Before you reach for the Kleenex, I do have some positive news. If you had backed these top-rated pace horses to level stakes, your 266 selections would have yielded a small profit to SP. Even better returns would have accrued if you had backed them at Betfair SP – at £10 per bet the profit after commission would have been just under £530. This equates to a return of about 20p in the £. Very satisfactory returns for what is essentially a simplistic method.

With a notable difference between the number of winning front-runners and the number of winners with the highest pace rank coming into the race, what these findings indicate once more is that predicting the front runner is far from an exact science. It is clearly not just a case of picking the horse in the race with the most pace points from their last four runs. What that table does seem to indicate though is that the more points you have the more chance you have of winning.

The top-rated pace horse did lead in nearly 40% of the races; the table below shows the run style of the top-rated pace horse in the reviewed races:

 

Pace Figure

Races

% of horses

4 – Led 105 39.5
3 – Prominent 106 39.8
2 – Midfield 23 8.6
1 – Held up 32 12.0

 

So those top-rated pace horses coming into a race have generally led or raced up with the pace, which is clearly what one would expect. However, when I started this series of articles I was hoping to find a method that would predict the front runner at least 50% of the time, if not 60%. Not around 40%! It is interesting to note that in the third article I found that horses that had led in a 5f handicap last time out, went on to lead in their next race 42.5% of the time. So perhaps the most recent race is more important than combining the last four when looking at pace figures, though in truth the difference in terms of the sample size is negligible.

My next port of call was to look at the actual pace figure gained by the top rated or joint top-rated pace horse. 16 (four pace figures of 4) is the highest pace figure a horse can achieve.

Here are the findings:

Your first 30 days for just £1

 

4 race pace total (top rated horses only)

Wins

Runs

SR%

16 2 31 6.5
15 8 78 10.3
14 7 87 8.0
13 5 32 15.6
12 2 32 6.3
11 2 5 40.0
10 0 1 0.0

 

These figures suggest nothing particularly clear cut at this stage – however, when I have looked at all 465 races hopefully a pattern may start to emerge.

Before moving on I would like to discuss a theory. There is a perception that if there are two or more potential front runners in a race, then that race will be set up for a ‘closer’. The theory is that there will be a strong battle for the lead where the leaders essentially ‘cut each other’s throats’ – allowing a horse to come from off the pace and win.

I wanted to try and test this theory as best I could. I decided therefore in each race to work out the pace average of the top four rated pace horses. If the theory held any validity, then I expected the record of the top rated pace horse would be poor when the four horse pace average was higher. Here are the findings:

 

Top four rated pace average

Top rated pace runners

Wins

SR%

BSP profit to £10 stakes

ROI%

14 and above 48 3 6.3 – £220 – 45.8
13 to 13.75 77 5 6.5 – £193 – 25.1
12 to 12.75 69 5 7.2 – £232 – 33.6
11 to 11.75 51 7 13.7 + £363 + 71.2
9 to 10.75 21 6 28.6 + £320 + 152.4

 

It seems that this theory does hold water, although I appreciate that not all top-rated pace horses lead. Having said that most top-rated pace horses race up with the pace and thus are not coming from ‘off the pace’ to win. The races where the top four horses averaged 14 or above produced the lowest strike rate and the worst returns. Conversely the races with relatively low averages produced extremely positive returns.

I have also looked at the combined win and placed strike rates to see if they correlate with the win strike rates:

 

Top four rated pace average

Top rated pace runners

Wins / places

Win/placed SR%

14 and above 48 10 20.8
13 to 13.75 77 19 24.7
12 to 12.75 69 22 31.9
11 to 11.75 51 19 37.3
9 to 10.75 21 12 57.1

 

It is pleasing to see the win and place strike rates increase as the four horse pace average decreases – just like the win data showed.

This takes me onto the second theory where there is a perception that if there is just one ‘genuine’ front runner in the race, that runner has a good chance of getting a ‘soft’ lead and this increases their prospects of leading all the way. The table above seems to suggest when there is less ‘pace’ in the race, potential front runners have a better chance of winning. However, we cannot be sure that a race with, say, a top four rated pace average of 11 has a sole front runner. Consider the following two scenarios:

 

Scenario 1: Pace average of top four pace horses = 11

Horse A – 15

Horse B – 10

Horse C – 10

Horse D – 9

 

Scenario 2: Pace average of top four pace horses = 11

Horse A – 12

Horse B – 12

Horse C – 11

Horse D –  9

 

One way to perhaps test this ‘soft’ lead theory is to look at the gap between the top rated pace horse and the second top rated pace horse. Here are these findings looking at the performance of the top rated pace horses in each case:

 

Gap between top and 2nd rated

Top rated pace runners

Wins

SR%

BSP profit to £10 stakes

ROI%

0 126 10 7.9 – £364 –28.9
1 75 4 5.3 – £495 –66.0
2 44 7 15.9 + £323 +73.4
3 15 4 26.7 + £525 +350.0
4 5 0 0.0 – £50 –100.0
5 1 1 100.0 + £85 +850.0

 

This once again is not a perfect test because the top rated pace runner does not always lead! However, what it does seem to suggest is that the top rated pace horse has done extremely well when there has been a gap of at least 2 points between them and the second rated. I appreciate the data set is relatively small, but nonetheless the signs are good. I did look at the win and placed data here and the correlation was less strong – the problem perhaps is the data set for a gap of 3 or more is so small. I will revisit this after looking at all the races and share that data. [Alternative theory for lack of place correlation is that trail blazers are often binary types, who either win or drop out completely – Ed.]

For the final part of this article I want to look at the profile of the 200 winners in terms of pace. I initially looked at their four race pace totals and noted that 128 winners (SR 64%) had a total of 10-16 while 72 winners (SR 36%) had a total of 4-9. It seems therefore at first glance that the horses with higher pace ratings have outperformed those with lower ones. However, we can all manipulate data and hence we need to know how many runners were in each of the two pace brackets. Fortunately we have a relatively even split as the table shows:

 

4 race totals for all runners

Win SR%

% of actual runners in all races

Between 4 and 9 36% 48.5%
Between 10 and 16 64% 51.5%

 

To clarify this means that horses with a pace total of 10 or higher (from their last four runs) have won 64% of all races from 51.5% of the total runners. Hence, as we would have hoped, horses with higher pace ratings do perform better in 5f handicaps than lower pace rated horses. In reality if ‘pace’ made no difference whatsoever then these horses should be winning 51.5% of races not 64% - in reality, they are roughly 1.25 times more likely to win than statistically they ought.

So, it’s time now to start looking at the other 265 races to see whether the statistical patterns noted in this article are replicated over a bigger sample. At present we can make the following observations:

 

  1. Front runners have a huge edge in 5f handicaps
  2. Top pace rated runners (using the last four races) have a relatively low strike rate but have shown a 20% profit to BSP
  3. Top pace rated runners have taken the early lead around 40% of the time (led or raced prominently in just under 80% of races)
  4. Top pace rated runners have a much better strike rate in races where the top four pace rated runners produce an average of less than 12
  5. Top pace rated runners have a much better strike rate in races where they have a 2 point or bigger gap to the second pace rated horse
  6. Horses pace rated 10 win almost twice as often as those rated 9 or lower

*The fifth and final part in this series can be found here*

- Dave Renham

 

 

Geegeez Gold: Feature Updates, June 2018

Slightly misleading title, I guess, as these new elements won't appear in Geegeez Gold until early July, but I wanted to give you a heads up of what we're working on just now.

The video below reveals all or, if you prefer a few words (no pictures), you'll find those below the video...

 

.

Report History

We're adding the ability to view the summary breakdown. So, for example, if Trainer A had 28 runners in the past fortnight and six winners, clicking the new icon will allow you to see those 28 runners, along with the details of the races - date, course, jockey, finishing position, field size and odds.

Export to CSV

We are also allowing, for the first time, users to download report output to csv. Although we think our parameter tools are a great way of shortlisting the report content you are interested in, some people want to get deep down with the data; now they - maybe you - can.

Query Tool Additions

We're adding some new variables to QT. Specifically, we're adding:

'Wind Count', which is the number of runs since wind surgery (0 = no wind surgery, 1 = first run after wind surgery, and so on).

'DSLR', which is days since last run

'SR Rank', which is the rank of the SR (speed rating) column in the cards. That is, SR Rank = 1 equates to the top rated horse in the race

'Damsire', which is the maternal grandfather (or mum's dad)

Race of the Day 7th June 2018 (plus new bits)

In today's video presentation, I go through Thursday's 9.20 at Carlisle using pace, draw and form to land on a horse that looks over-priced; and I also reveal a few cool new features which are coming soon...

Watch and listen to the video below!

The Importance of Pace in 5f Handicaps: Part 3

In my first two articles I looked at pace in five-furlong handicaps focusing primarily on courses, writes Dave Renham.

Part 1, which then links to Part 2, can be found here.

The data suggest that some courses offer a much stronger pace edge than others. However, all the research points to the fact that front runners in 5f handicaps have a definite edge almost regardless of where the race is being run. When I say ‘definite edge’ perhaps I should clarify that front runners win far more often than statistically one might expect.

To recap, when I talk about pace my main focus is the initial pace in a race and positions the horses take up in the opening couple of furlongs. As mentioned before the Geegeez website splits pace data into four groups - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. These groups are assigned numerical values – led gets 4 points, prominent 3, mid division 2 and held up 1. When I used to tip ‘back in the day’, I created similar pace figures, but used values from 5 to 1, and also used the last six runs rather than the last four. I don’t think there will ever be a ‘perfect’ method for creating pace figures, but I am sure the Geegeez method is as good as any.

Horses on the Geegeez racecard pace tab (data view) have their last four UK/Ire runs highlighted, with the most recent run to the left and each horse has an individual total for their last four runs. Hence the highest last four races pace total a horse could achieve is 16 (four 4s), while the lowest is 4 (four 1s). This is assuming of course that they have had at least four career runs.

With such an advantage in 5f handicaps it makes sense to investigate ways of trying to successfully predict the front runner. One starting point would simply be to look at the horse’s combined pace figures in the race in question and choose the horse with the highest figure. Let us look at a recent example to help make this idea clearer to the reader. The race was run on the 31st May at Hamilton – it was a 5 furlong handicap with 7 runners. Pre-race the 7 runners had the following pace totals:

 

5f sprint pace tab example

5f sprint pace tab example

 

One difficulty for predicting the front runner in this particular race was that you had three horses at the top with very close figures. Also none of the runners had led a race early in more than one of their last four starts meaning that they were not ‘out and out’ front running trail-blazers. As the race panned out, the three most likely front runners took up the first three positions early on: Jabbarockie led narrowly to Jacob’s Pillow who in turn raced just ahead of Dapper Man. Hamilton’s 5f favours front runners reasonably strongly, as can be seen from the green pace ‘blobs’ in the image, and not surprisingly perhaps the winner and runner up came from these three.

As we can see, this race panned out in a very similar way to how the pace figures had predicted it would. However, correctly predicting the front runner of the top three rated was clearly not ‘a given’. This of course is one of the problems with blindly going for the highest rated pace horse. Having said that, one would expect the highest rated pace horse to lead far more often than the lowest rated pace horse! My aim is to look at this idea in more detail in the future.

For this article I am using a slightly more simplistic approach. I am focusing on the most recent race only. To begin with I looked at horses that gained a pace figure of 4 (by leading early) last time out in a 5f handicap to see what pace figure they achieved in their very next run. I was hoping of course that a decent percentage led early on next time out. Here are my findings:

Pace figure

(next run after leading over 5f LTO)

4 3 2 1
% of runners 42.5% 39.2% 8.3% 10.0%

 

This is quite encouraging with 42.5% of runners leading on their very next start. In addition less than 20% of them raced midfield or further back in the pack early on. At this juncture, it should be noted that horses that were taken on for the lead last time out scored slightly lower in terms of leading next time (led roughly 34% of the time). These are the horses that gained comments such as ‘with leaders’, ‘disputed lead’ etc – for the record these runners still gain a 4 score for these comments.

I then looked at the data for horses that had gained a 4 pace score last time out in 6f handicaps. 6f races are still considered sprints, and the front runner generally has an edge in these races too. However, this edge is less strong than it is over 5f. I was intrigued however to see how the next time out figures panned out – would last time out front runners, lead again? This is what I found:

Pace figure

Your first 30 days for just £1

(next run after leading over 6f LTO)

4 3 2 1
% of runners 31.0% 44.4% 12.5% 12.1%

 

Down to around 1 in 3 who managed to lead next time, although 75% either led or tracked the pace (which I guess can be taken as a positive). The figures for horses that were taken on for the lead last time out again scored lower (just 21% of these runners led next time).

It seems sensible given this initial data to concentrate on 5f handicaps for the remainder of this article. This does not mean we cannot gain a pace edge over other race distances too, but I feel the front running bias works best over the minimum distance of 5f.

My next port of call was to look at horses that had gained a pace score last time out in 5f handicaps of 1 – these are the horses that raced at the back of the pack LTO. I was hoping to see that they predominantly raced at the back of the pack early on in their next run, or at least did not lead early very often. This is what I found:

 

Pace figure (next run after a pace score of 1 LTO over 5f) 4 3 2 1
% of runners 7.9% 35.5% 22.1% 34.5%

 

Interestingly a pace score of 3 has been achieved the most, although a score of 1 was not far behind. Pleasingly from a research point of view only 8% of runners that were held up at the back LTO scored a 4 and led early on their next start. The stats suggest therefore that horses that gained a 4 pace score LTO in 5f handicaps are over 5 times more likely to lead next time out than horses that gained a 1 pace score.

There are of course many factors that determine how likely a horse is to lead – not just their pace score over their last four runs, or their pace score LTO – but as I have alluded to earlier the pace competitiveness of the other runners in the race. One huge factor that has to be taken into account is the draw at certain courses. If we look at Chester over 5f one can see that it is extremely difficult to lead from a wide draw. In handicaps with 8 or more runners horses from the top third of the draw have managed to take the early lead just 13% of the time. This drops to a measly 7.5% when there have been 10 or more runners. Chester is not unique in that respect either – Beverley in 5f handicaps (10 runners or more) has seen the top third of the draw lead early just 16% of the time whereas the bottom third of the draw has assumed an early advantage 52% of the time. Thus the draw must be factored in at some courses.

I looked next at whether leading in a bigger field made it more likely you would lead next time – my theory being that to lead a bigger field would need more early pace than if you were running in a smaller field. I looked at 5f handicaps with 12 runners or more, and it should be noted that if the race had split into more than one group, I chose the overall leader only. However, the figures virtually matched the overall 5f figures as the table below shows:

Pace figure (next run after leading over 5f LTO in a 12+ runner race) 4 3 2 1
% of runners 42.4% 39.8% 7.6% 10.2%

 

My next port of call was looking at horses that had won a 5f handicap LTO by making all the running – these runners earn comments such as ‘made all’, ‘made most’, ‘made virtually all’, etc. My theory was that horses in form that had led LTO were more likely to lead on their very next start. This time, the data backed up the theory:

Pace figure (next run making all or making most over 5f LTO) 4 3 2 1
% of runners 51.2% 36.8% 4.8% 7.2%

 

For the first time we exceed the 50% mark in terms of horses that lead.

Perhaps at this juncture it is worth elaborating on why being able to predict the front runner in 5f handicaps is worth the effort. It has been noted that front runners win more often than they should statistically, but the key point is that they potentially offer huge profits. Now clearly you are never going to be able to predict the front runner all the time, but the higher percentage you achieve, the greater your chances of making decent long term returns.

Finally in this article I want to offer another approach in terms of trying to predict the front runner in 5f handicaps – this is simply focusing on individual horses that traditionally have shown a desire to lead early. Now, this is likely to limit your potential bets considerably but if you were able to create a list of say 25 such horses you would have a good chance of turning the stats in your favour. Let me look at one such horse – Bosham. At the time of writing (June 1st 2018), Bosham has raced 67 times in his career and has led early in 41 of those races – this equates to 61.2% of the time. We can improve upon this by digging a bit deeper into his record: it improves to 63.8% in 5f races; in 5f races in single figure fields (9 or less runners) this improves to 71.4% (from 21 races); in 5f races running round a bend this improves to 76% (from 25 races).

Bosham last raced on the 31st May at Chelmsford over 5f. This race was also a good example of when the Geegeez pace stats for the last four runs have worked perfectly. These were the runners in the race with their pace totals:

 

Bosham was a very likely leader on a speed-favouring track, and prevailed at 7/1

Bosham was a very likely leader on a speed-favouring track, and prevailed at 7/1

 

Bosham looked the most likely front runner having led in each of his last four starts and so it proved. Of course if you had looked at his career record this would also have pinpointed him as a likely front runner. Another positive was that he had a decent draw in 4 which meant he was close to the favoured inside rail. As it turned out, Bosham led early and went on to win relatively unchallenged at 7/1. For the record the joint-second rated pace runner, Crosse Fire, a 16/1 shot, raced in second early on before fading into fourth in the final furlong.

The data in this article cements the fact that early pace is be a highly significant factor in horseracing, and 5f handicaps in particular. Geegeez Gold offers users the insight for any race within the Pace tab, and subscribers are strongly encouraged to take some time to get to grips with it. Such time investment is quite likely to generate a robust financial return.

***Part 4 can be viewed here***

- Dave Renham

p.s. if you're not yet a Gold subscriber, you can get a taster of the pace functionality either by registering as a free user and checking the pace in our free Gold races (up to six daily), or you can take a 30 day trial for £1. Click here to start your trial.

Gold: What We’re Up To…

Development of Geegeez Gold into a form provision for all punters, regardless of time, experience or desired level of engagement, is ongoing. From the outset, we've sought to differentiate from other form books by using more visual indicators, and aggregating data for expediency purposes. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Instant Expert view.

 

More configurability is now yours with Instant Expert v2.0

More configurability is now yours with Instant Expert v2.0

 

We recently gave Instant Expert its first nip and tuck - more collagen injection than full cosmetic surgery - by introducing additional filters for time period, race code, and handicaps/all races. And we continue to make progress with the Query Tool, though that has been a little slower than ideal.

 

Basic charting functionality in geegeez.co.uk Query Tool

Basic charting functionality in geegeez.co.uk Query Tool

 

The pipeline for Gold development has a long route to travel, flowing as it does from the contents of the darker crevasses of my creaking cranium, via a couple of wildly talented but somewhat maverick developers, into the estuary of our test site, and finally onto the live website here.

We use a few collaboration tools to manage that flow, and in the remainder of this post I will share some of what currently resides there.

But first a warning...

Before I share what next, I need to warn you of the very next thing we're undertaking.

As Geegeez Gold has grown, both in terms of functionality and user numbers, so the requirement for computing power has grown too. Also, time has passed since we kicked this off in 2013, and the server we were using then is no longer up to the job.

We need http2, and fast-cgi, and SSD, and TLS 2.1 and other acronyms that I don't fully understand but have on good authority will enhance both the stability of the site - which, in truth, has been disappointing in the past month or so - and the speed of access for users. Oh, and of course, the new box will further improve security.

It's a hideous job, fraught with peril and, to be blunt, I've been sh!tting myself about doing it for more than two years now. But it cannot be ignored any longer. We are currently in the process of building the new server - a process that has complexity relating to the various inputs we have, as well as code and data challenges, etc etc blah blah.

From your perspective, you just need it to work and, in an ideal world, to work a little faster. Our job is to make that happen. We're on it, and we'll likely be switching in the next fortnight or so. *dons tin hat, and assumes the brace position*

 

Then what?

Once we've migrated to the new whizzbang (more whizz less bang, I hope) server, we can get back to the fun stuff. Here's what's in store, though keep in mind that not all of it will necessarily see the light of day: the features we're considering range from 'must have' to Coleridgesque opiate-addled fantasy!

Here we go then...

- Calculate and publish overrounds for races (general excitement level: yawn)

- QT: make 'group by' links clickable (general excitement level: useful)

- QT: add 'tool tips' to explain stuff (general excitement level: yawn)

- QT: add Speed Rating Rank to allow analysis of the effectiveness of the figures (general excitement level: cool)

- QT: add damsire (general excitement level: mildly interesting)

- QT: allow users to save queries within QT (general excitement level: awesome!)

- QT: allow users to view saved query qualifiers on the racecard (general excitement level: totes amazeballs!)

- QT: add Equipment Count (e.g. blinkers first time) (general excitement level: interesting)

- QT: add Wind Count (e.g. first run after wind op) (general excitement level: mucho interesting)

- QT: add last run info (days since, class, course, distance, etc) (general excitement level: very useful)

- Then What?: add class distinction to 'then what?' form follow in racecard (general excitement level: useful)

- Top SR Differential report: highlighting the horses furthest clear of their fields each day (general excitement level: interesting)

- Export report output to Excel (general excitement level: nice touch)

- TJ Combo report: add one year trainer/jockey sub-report (general excitement level: very useful)

- Class Move report: new report, with an option to display class move indicators on racecard (general excitement level: useful)

- Racecard menu filters: only interested in sprint handicaps? See only the races you're fussed about (general excitement level: niche)

- Instant Expert: add draw position (general excitement level: very useful for flat races)

- Instant Expert: create trainer/jockey/sire options, if possible (general excitement level: awesome)

- Ratings pars: calculate and publish ratings pars for course/distance/class combinations (general excitement level: interesting)

Your first 30 days for just £1

 

And now for something completely different...

Lots of interesting bits there, most of them of interest to Peter but not Paula, or Paula but not Peter, if you see what I mean. Alongside all of that, I am working on a couple of more mechanical features, which are, to be frank, no better than even money to see publication. For interest, then, these are they...

  1. Sprint Handicap Form Cheat Sheet

I recently read an old book called Betting on Flat Handicaps, by Jon Gibby. It was published fifteen years ago and, since then, much of the draw and pace data in the book has become outdated. Luckily for us, Geegeez Gold has permanently current data for both of those elements which, applied to the excellent regimen espoused in Gibby's book, provides a very solid framework for form study in such races.

Nothing about his approach is earth-shattering or rocket science, but all of it represents common sense fundamental principles. Gibby, who focuses primarily in sprint handicaps, goes about eliminating a section of the field based on where they are drawn. For the remaining runners he digs into the form book. See, I told you it wasn't rocket science. That it is effective should not be surprising.

I've been looking at a race or two a day, when I have time, and my results in this 'testing phase' are below.

Very (very!) early days, but a good start

Very (very!) early days, but a good start

 

Now, straight off the bat it needs saying that a 40% strike rate is unsustainable, still less when two of those winners were at double digit odds. So let's be realistic here: there's a solid chance of a protracted losing sequence coming next for the test. What I'm looking for in this incubator phase is some sort of affirmation for the process. I want the picks to largely run well, or with legitimate excuses; and I want unbacked winners to generally have been on my shortlist.

If after 50 bets - still a small sample but data-driven betting on racing is usually based on small samples - that's the general feel I'm getting, it'll be time to engage a little more committedly...

So, if the above is the answer - or are the answers - so far, where are the workings out?

My process is as follows:

  1. Draw
  2. Trainer form
  3. Pace profile
  4. Horse form

Here's how I go about it:

Draw

For the draw, I go to the draw tab in the race card on Geegeez Gold, and select the going above and below today's official going (e.g. if today's going is good to soft, I'll choose the range good through to soft). I then amend the runner range to be +/- 2 (e.g. if ten runners, I'll select 8 to 12). These ranges are used to get better sample sizes from which to work. Clearly, by being less specific on going and field size I lose a little in terms of direct relevance; but my contention is that this is more than mitigated by the slightly higher confidence levels commensurate with a bigger dataset. I also use 'actual draw', i.e. number of stalls from box 1 after non-runners are considered. Anyhoo...

I then have some data in the IV column on the draw tab. IV, or impact value, is a measure of how much more or less likely something is to happen. In this case, it's a measure of how much more or less likely a horse is to win when drawn in stall x based on the total population of runners in the sample.

I add that IV number to my spreadie and then, in an attempt to even out the individual starting stall IV's, I take an average of the stall and its immediate neighbours. That is, for stall 1, an average of stall 1 and 2; for stall 2, an average of stalls 1 to 3; for stall 6, an average of stalls 5 to 7; and so on. To that, I add a little crass colour coding (what can I say, I find colour a very powerful visual aid...!)

It looks a bit like this.

Colour-coded average draw IV's

Colour-coded average draw IV's

 

The colour-coding is a bit rough and ready, and I'm obviously trying not to cherry-pick. That is, it makes no sense, for instance, to infer a positive impact from horses in stalls four and six, but negative impact for the horse in the stall between them. We need to be a little 'real world' here and look for general patterns. The averaging thing helps to some degree, but there remains inference in the process.

So, in the example above, I have a primary draw focus on those in stalls one to five. Note how the middle draws have fared less well historically in this example. The winner here was drawn five and, if I'd looked solely at individual draw, stall five's IV of just 0.42 would have put me off. Even in this case, it remains daft to say that five is green/good while six is red/bad. With the exception of some tracks where stall 1 is a negative, it is generally the case that there is a steady diffusion of goodness/badness rather than absolutely/arbitrary cutoffs. But this is punting, and we need to take a view!

 

Trainer Form

I'm not certain I've got the best approach to evaluating draw, and that's a comment which applies even more to my current method for trainer form. Here, I'm taking an average of the IV's for each trainer's 14 day, 30 day, course 1 year and course 5 year form. The problem here is that there is a very obvious 'related contingency': in plain English, the trainer's 30 day form includes his 14 day form, and the trainer's five year course form includes her one year course form. So that's probably wrong. It might be better to add the average of the 14/30 to the average of the C1/C5, or to take an average of those two averages.

Moreover, I'm not currently factoring in the contextual form elements, such as trainer's form with e.g. sprinters, or first run off a layoff or handicap first time, etc. That, too, is probably wonky.

Nevertheless, I have some data, which gives me a view of trainer form, and looks like this:

An approximation of trainer form is useful ballast

An approximation of trainer form is useful ballast

 

Pace Profile

Step 3 is to profile the pace in the race. How much is there overall, how is it spread across the field, and what are the individual horse's pace profiles?

All of this can be gleaned very quickly by sorting the runners on the pace tab by draw. Here is how our example race looked on the pace tab:

Pace tab shows overall pace profile, historical performance, and individual pace preferences

Pace tab shows overall pace profile, historical performance, and individual pace preferences

 

There is a lot of information in this view.

First, in the green box, I've highlighted the historical pace performance of the different early run styles - with the going and runner ranges extended as discussed previously.

Second, in the blue box to the right, I've highlighted the runners' average pace score for their last four UK/Irish runs (4 - led, through to 1 - held up).

And third, the view is sorted by draw (see left hand orange box) to give a visual perspective on how the pace might play out, based on the recent history of the runners in the field. In this case, there looked to be a bit of pace competition both high and low, where our draw research ssuggested those drawn on the flanks had the best record. Moreover, those who raced prominently or mid-division had fared marginally best in this sample (see the coloured blobs in the highlighted green box), though there seemed little in it.

That draw/pace profile hinted at Muscika, Black Isle Boy and My Name Is Rio.

 

Horse Form

The final piece in the puzzle is horse form. Clearly, this is a significant piece and, once the field has been whittled using draw and/or pace, the focus is keenly on what the animals have done. Trainer form is probably the least considered element at this stage in my testing, unless a handler is obviously bang out of, or in, form. [Trainer form is also the element which needs most further scrutiny just now, in terms of how I measure it].

I use Instant Expert, Full Form and the Card tab for the horse form part, and it feels like the one component which will be quite difficult to automate.

Here's how the key components of my 'race card' looked in the spreadsheet [click the image to expand it].

Pulling all the elements together offers a pretty solid understanding of which horses have value chances

Pulling all the elements together offers a pretty solid understanding of which horses have value chances

 

Looking back on this I probably got the pre-runner pace profile colouring wrong. It is generally my preference to favour early pace, as I  have done here; but the historical profile suggested a slightly more restrained ride was often the way to go, and so it proved. Fortunately, there was enough in Black Isle Boy's favour - especially at the price - to have a small interest anyway, though I feel I was somewhat lucky rather than good in this instance.

 

Why are you telling me this?

I mention all of the above for two reasons. One, a bit like the 'secret' to weight loss being diet and exercise, there is no secret to form study. It involves pulling all, or as many as possible, of the salient factors into a melting pot of deliberation. It takes time and effort, some of which can be automated.

Which segues nicely onto reason two: all of this content exists within Geegeez Gold, which means the process of automation is within our/my control. It's on the wish list!

 

2. A R-r-r-r-r-ating?!

Ratings are tricky. Super tricky. There are times and places when they're of huge utility, and there are other times when, in my opinion, they offer  little to no value. For example, what use is a speed rating if the race looks likely to be run at a crawl? And what use is an ability rating if it fails to account for the specific race conditions on the day?

The best rating would accommodate such considerations and more besides; and it would learn to refine its number set as more evidence is presented. In point of fact, that's largely how Peter May's ratings, which we proudly carry here on Geegeez Gold, are derived.

And, in a weak moment, I got it into my noggin that I might create my own set of figures. Actually, it's a recurring thought. But I know that this would become somewhat sisyphean (I'd love to name a horse, Somewhat Sysiphean!) - it would be a life's work, and one almost certainly doomed to ignominious failure.

In spite of holding that contention in my saner moments, I did draw up the first (extremely) rough draft of 'ground zero' for a rating set. Here is it. Click for a full size view, and feel free to make a comment below. But please don't ask questions!!

Some 'fag packet' thoughts on how a rating set might be constructed. Not. Straightforward.

Some 'fag packet' thoughts on how a rating set might be constructed. Not. Straightforward.

 

Summary

So yes, oodles in the pipeline, some of it nearer / more realistic than others; all of it obliged to follow on from the major infrastructure work we're currently undertaking. It's going to be another exciting year ahead!

Matt

Instant Expert v2.0 is LIVE

It's live, the new Instant Expert v2.0. Or maybe we'll just continue to call it Instant Expert, eh?

Most importantly, if you're in the Remain camp, do nothing and Instant Expert will continue to display the data as ever it did. However, if you're an Instantexpiteer (see what I did there? Not great, granted) then you'll want to have a watch and a listen to the below videotape, which explains all...

There is also an updated User Guide that outlines the changes. You can get that from the link on the My Geegeez page.

Geegeez Cards: A few small tweaks

Nothing exciting in the latest tweaks, which are little more than minor bug fixes. Specifically, they're as follows:

- Disabled switching between race card tabs when using the arrow keys for up/down scrolling

- Added 'abandonment' notifications for races/meetings

- Fixed a bug with scrolling between Full Form runners from the drop down, whereby performance slowed the more races that were viewed

- Added more race details (distance, runners) to compact card menu 'hover over' data

- Fixed issue with incorrect 'runs since wind surgery' counts

More exciting things coming soon...

 

Easter Eggs from Geegeez…

It's Easter so how about some Easter eggs? In the software community, an Easter egg is a hidden piece of functionality only known to insiders. Well, we're not quite so covert here at geegeez.co.uk, so in today's post, I've a couple of tasty morsels which are hopefully better for you - for your teeth at least - than a chocolate ovoid!

Specifically, I've recorded a video showing what's new and what's coming soon, including something about which I'm very excited. And I've a few words - mainly just for fun - on the Irish National. Let's start with the Geegeez Gold Easter Egg...

Now and Next on Geegeez Gold

Video timeline

00:00 Introductory waffle

00:30 Hcap/All filter on Draw tab

03:08 The first change to Instant Expert for a loooooong time

05:17 Query Tool: cosmetic enhancements

07:38 Query Tool: pictures!

08:55 Query Tool: Angles, a first look

10:25 QT Angles on the racecard

14:30 Query Tool: example Angle

19:10 Two-day and one-week Gold passes (non-recurring)

Your first 30 days for just £1

**

Irish National Thoughts

The following is at best half-baked, and is offered 'just for fun' on what is shaping up to be something of a washout day...

I would be slightly sweeter on the picks were it not for the white hot tussle for the Irish Trainers' Championship between Messrs Mullins and Elliott. That significant set to has seen no fewer than THIRTEEN entries from Cullentra House, and another four from Mullins' Closutton base. Whatever you think of that from a macro perspective, it makes for a very different race shape and, thus, trends - which have been strong in this contest down the years - may be torpedoed on this occasion.

No matter, for the trends have been strong, as I say. A low weight, and a commensurate lesser rating; a younger horse; a win over a trip of three miles or beyond; fairly unexposed over fences; and a recent run between two weeks and two months. Those criteria (perhaps excluding the weight/rating one) largely fit a lot of top table staying chases and so make sense.

In truth, it is the weight/rating element which I suspect may derail us this term, with so many classy contenders from the two aforementioned powerhouses. One thing you can be sure if you fancy one from Mullins' or Elliott's batallion is that they will have no idea which is most likely to win: jockey bookings and the like may be less of a pointer then, and prices may be artificially inflated down the batting order.

Enough of the flim flam, here are the ones I've backed:

Trends picks

My trendy shortlist was Arkwrisht, Squouateur, Sutton Manor and Champagne Harmony. The last named is a million chance on form and will take no more than the minimum stake on the machine as a flippant action bet. I have reservations about both S's, Squouateur and Sutton Manor, in a big field, though I've backed them both, at 25 and 40 on Betfair - both are now bigger (great, ahem).

The one I like most is Arkwisht, trained by Joseph O'Brien, and ridden by Rachael Blackmore.

Surprisingly, Elliott and Mullins are collectively nought from 50! That must be odds-on to change this afternoon, but if not Arkwrisht ticks a lot of boxes - form in big fields, on heavy ground, and beyond three miles - though I do have a slight niggle about whether the eight-year-old German-bred can quite see out this 29 furlong slog. Still, each way at 28/1 with as many place concessions as you can snaffle should offer a run.

Other picks

And I've taken a couple of other 'just for fun' swipes - well, you can't have enough swipes in a race like this, can you? - in the form of The Paparazzi Kid and Moulin A Vent.

The Paparazzi Kid would be a real story horse if he won. €270,000, the first prize, could well be more than the difference between Mullins and Elliott at the end of the season, so the fact that this chap is having his first start for Gordon, having previously been trained by Willie, would smart in the extreme for the incumbent champ!

He has a better form chance than 66/1 (160 on the exchange) implies as well, in spite of being a full on trends buster. He's eleven (too old), his winning form is all at two and a half miles (won't stay), and he's been chasing for five years (too long). The negatives out of the way, the case for the defence is thus: loves heavy ground (122114 lifetime), has very good form in big fields (20311244U in 16+ runner races), has slipped to a pound below his last winning mark, and has gone to a yard with an excellent record at winning first time after a trainer switch and off a layoff.

He'll be ridden for luck, which he very well might not get, and to get the trip, which he very well might not get; so caveat emptor. But he'll be fun to watch for a circuit and a bit at least.

Moulin A Vent has a more obvious claim, as one of the classier horses in the line up. This Graded performer drops into handicap company for the first time, though jockey bookings suggest he's the stable second string, Sean Flanagan jumping ship to Snow Falcon. He may live to regret that as his spurned former partner, on which he's sat every time that one has raced over an obstacle, sets up well against conditions.

Only six, Moulin A Vent has had 14 career starts, just six of which have been in chases. He's clearly unexposed - the corollary to which is that he's inexperienced - and a fast run stamina test might be just what he wants. Big fields and heavy ground hold no fears, but the fences do: this chap is a sticky jumper. Faller insurance may be a prudent play if you can find it, and the general 33/1 - nearer 40's on Betfair (no insurance) - is attractive.

There are loads of class horses in what is a really deep and competitive renewal, so take a few stabs, swot up on your Gigginstown cap colours, and strap yourself in for a fun ten minutes or so. Good luck!

Matt

More New Bits on Gold: Pace Granularity

As promised, we've added a couple more new bits to Geegeez Gold - with plenty more to follow in the coming weeks.

Today, I'm pleased to share with you improved pace granularity and the addition of the HCAP/ALL filter on Report Angles. Let's deal with the latter first.

Report Angles: Handicap Only option

On a number of Gold reports, including Trainer and Jockey Statistics, Trainer/Jockey Combo, and Trainer and Sire Snippets, it is possible for a user to select the data based on ALL races or handicaps (HCAP) only. Well, by surprisingly (to me, at least!) popular demand, we've added these filters to the new Report Angles feature.

PLEASE NOTE: We're aware of a problem with the Trainer Snippets HCAP options on Report Angles, and working to fix that. For now, please leave them set to ALL if you you use Trainer Snippets within Report Angles.

It looks like this:

On selected reports, you can now opt to view Angles data for handicaps only, or for all races

On selected reports, you can now opt to view Angles data for handicaps only, or for all races

 

Once you've set the angles up - don't forget to save them - you'll be able to see your chosen parameters both in your Report Angles report, and on the racecards themselves, as follows:

If you've selected HCAP on the settings page, you'll only see handicap race data on your Report Angles

If you've selected HCAP on the settings page, you'll only see handicap race data on your Report Angles

Your first 30 days for just £1

 

Report Angles appear inline on the selected race types

Report Angles appear inline on the selected race types

 

Pace Granularity

Our pace information is incredibly instructive for understanding how a race will be run. The pace maps are rarely far from what comes to pass and are a must for the serious punter. But, when it comes to understanding how the shape of today's race overlays onto history, we had hitherto adopted a 'one size fits all' approach.

That is, we lumped all races over a given course and distance combination together, regardless of whether there were five or fifteen runners; or the going was firm or heavy. Clearly that's a little too imprecise to be optimal, so we've addressed it.

From today, we have implemented going and field size ranges to better capture today's race shape against its historical precursors. The short video below explains all:

 

 

There is plenty more in the pipeline, and I look forward to sharing it with you soon.

Matt

p.s. if you have any issues with getting the new elements to work, please do consult this FAQ before contacting our support. Obviously, if you've done that and are still having problems, let us know!

New Gold Features Coming Soon in 2018…

New Year, New Year.

Happy New Year to you.

After a quiet spell, we're ready to kick things up a notch both in terms of editorial and our premium racing form provision. In today's post, I'd like to share with you what's coming next to Geegeez Gold...

Right Now

We made a couple of very small changes yesterday to:
- include official ratings on full results
- publish the winning time on full results
- add Report Angles to the report dropdown

Here's how those all look:

 

In the next fortnight

Meanwhile, being put through its paces on test as I speak are a couple of more meaningful changes.

HCAP option on Report Angles

The first of them is the addition of a HCAP option to Report Angles. When we released Report Angles a month or so ago, the first response was 'Wow!' - after we got over a couple of teething issues, that is. The second response was, "Can you add a handicap only filter, please?".

Well, we're here to bring you the stuff you want, so yes, we heard you and I'm happy to say this will be live in the near future. It's already up on my test setup, as you can see from the below image:

We've added 'Handicap only' filters to Report Angles in line with the individual reports

We've added 'Handicap only' filters to Report Angles in line with the individual reports

 

Pace tab: enhanced focus

The second enhancement is to the Pace tab. "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king" has been our motto on this front to date. That is to say that, because nobody else is doing anything meaningful on pace (which, incidentally, is the singlemost under-rated element of form study in this country, in my view), our Pace content stands apart at making it easy to see how a race will likely pan out.

Your first 30 days for just £1

But... it's been an irritant to me for some time that, for instance, the historical pace profile of a big field fast ground race may very well not be the same as for a small field soft ground race over the same course and distance.

So we've addressed that, by adding going and field size dropdowns to the Pace tab.

This is Chelmsford's 8.15 race tonight, a 7f contest between eight runners. As you can see from the top part of the image - with all going and all field sizes selected - it has been advantageous to be on the lead. Indeed, 21% of winners have raced that way for a profit of £34 to a £1 level stake.

But look at the bottom part, where we focus on standard going (which is most of the runs, of course) but also on a more targeted runner range of seven to ten. Now we can see that those horse which led have a 28% win rate and a £1 level stake profit of £73.71.

Hopefully you can see how this granularity will be useful. I'm very excited about sharing it!

[One caveat is that it will often produce small sample sizes. That's why we have the dropdowns so users can extend the ranges to get a more meaningful sample.]

Field size has a major bearing on run style effectiveness

Field size has a major bearing on run style effectiveness

 

**

Next six weeks or so

A little further down the line we have still more planned. I don't want to go into too much detail yet, mainly because I haven't got screenshots to show you.

But there are a couple of extra reports (class move, and SR differential) which will be interesting.

We're also looking at an Instant Expert 2.0, which will allow users to filter by Handicap/All Races, and by different time periods.

And we'll be creating some filters on the racecard menu, so you can see those races which interest you. Not interest in small field races? Only want handicaps to display? Want to exclude Irish, or UK racing? Only interested in sprints? Just want the better class stuff? You'll be able to filter by all of these things, and have your racecard menu presented to you... very soon.

Next three to six months

Looking further down the line we're working on making Geegeez Gold less prescriptive and more in line with what you want to see. We'll be enabling you to create and save angles in the Query Tool; and you'll be able to see angle qualifiers right within the racecard.

For those short on time, we're also working on a Bet Finder feature. This will identify horses running today that meet certain fixed criteria outlined by you.

Lots of exciting developments in the pipeline, and I hope they'll provide you with even more of an edge over your fellow punters.

Matt

The Very Best of 2017 on geegeez.co.uk

It’s been another fantastic year for geegeez.co.uk. During our ninth year online – we began in August 2008 - we’ve continued to build on our core principles: quality editorial, value tipping, and the best racecard and form tool service in the land. Here are some potted highlights and, beneath those, 15 of the best posts from 2017:

Stat of the Day

Stat of the Day is closing out on its sixth year of profit since inception in November 2011, a sequence we’re very proud of. The yearly totals are:

2012 +118.96

2013 +23.62

2014 +88.38

2015 +86.8

2016 +46.24

2017 (at 25th December) +113.06

TOTAL: +477.06

Those figures are achieved from one bet a day, Monday to Saturday. The overall strike rate is 27.8% and the return on investment an impressive 25.92%.

 

>>>> DOWNLOAD THE BEST OF 2017 REPORT HERE <<<<

 

Race of the Day

In July of 2017, we made Race of the Day, our free daily showcase of the Gold tools, more like a tipping piece by giving it a stronger voice on a particular horse. We have deliberately not published the profit and loss because the intention has always been to demonstrate the tool kit first and foremost.

However, I can exclusively reveal that, since the change of tack, Race of the Day is showing a healthy profit of 38.8 points from its first 100 picks, as follows:

100 selections, 38.80 points profit, strike rate 14.00%, ROI 38.80%, average odds 7.94/1

 

Editorial and Geegeez Gold

In the remainder of this report, you will find the best fifteen posts of 2017, intertwined with links to ‘how to’ and ‘what’s new’ features on Geegeez Gold.

Our editorial team includes the likes of Fleet Street veteran, Tony Stafford racing editor at the Daily Telegraph for more than two decades and national tips champion three times; Mal Boyle, the ‘go to’ guy for all things placepot; Tony Keenan, one of the most up-and-coming scribes of the new data-driven generation; and, erm, yours truly.

It is always a pleasure curating the annual ‘best of’ round up, because there is so much tip top quality content to work with. Indeed, this year, I failed to get it down to the usual ten articles and have included fifteen. I could easily have published twenty-five, with no loss of quality or interest.

*

Geegeez Gold is our premium service, which has been helping subscribers unearth serious value for four years now. We started building in earnest at the end of 2013 and, as we move into 2018, the focus on improvement and enhancement remains as keen and committed as ever.

This year, we’ve added all sorts of new features, such as Draw Analyser, inline trainer snippets, visual pace maps and, most recently, Report Angles. As with everything we do in this space, the intention is to provide more info in less time.

To that end, our racecards are a ‘chest of drawers’ of lowdown: clicking any icon is like opening a well sorted drawer. Click again and the drawer closes. The depth of data, and its convenience of access, is unparalleled.

Report Angles, the latest feature addition, represents the first step towards providing users with a much more tailored experience. During 2018, we will continue to give you, our valued subscriber, options to customize and enhance your views, such that what you see is what you want to see, not what we decide to show you.

It’s a big step forward, and will take some time to complete. Naturally, all current functionality will be uninterrupted as we move forward. I hope you enjoy what we have already at the end of 2017, and I’m excited about what is to come in 2018.

Please do enjoy the featured articles – my pick of 2017 from geegeez.co.uk – and, if you’re not yet a Gold subscriber, I look forward to welcoming you on board soon. There is a £1 trial available from the banner below.

>>>> DOWNLOAD THE BEST OF 2017 REPORT HERE <<<<

Good luck, and Happy New Year,

Matt