In this week's Gold Nuggets, I show you how to use our awesome Query Tool to drill down into a race's history in search of profiles, patterns and, heck let's say it, trends! I've used the example of the Thyestes Chase, a high class extended three-mile handicap which often throws up a Grade 1 performer of the future. See what you think...
It is with the usual trepidation that I share what follows, fully cognisant that not all receive such things in the spirit with which they are intended. However, regular readers will know how important I believe it is to 'walk the talk', which is why I have begun to share my betting P&L on an annual basis. You can review last year's here, for example, should you so wish.
In the video below you'll find a full rundown of the withdrawals from and deposits to my bank account in 2021. Before you look at that, though, a few important points:
So here goes: a recording of me downloading 2021's bank transactions and removing the non-betting ones to leave just the betting entries.
Matt
p.s. How did YOU do? Not really interested in 'actual money' figures, but rather did you make a profit? Did you make a smaller loss (which is the single most important step any punter can take)? Or was 2021 tougher for you punting-wise? What worked for you, or not? Leave a comment below and share your experience.
This Q&A article is designed to highlight and explain possible betting angles in horse racing and different ways to get the best out of Geegeez Gold. This will be added to on a regular basis, answering questions from YOU, the readers.
For all questions there will be answers from each of Matt Bisogno, Sam Darby and Chris Worrall. Everyone has a slightly different approach when it comes to betting on horses so you should expect differing answers from all three contributors.
If you have a question you’d like to ask the Geegeez panel, about horse racing in general or specifically their use of Geegeez Gold, please post your query in the comments section and we’ll do our best to include it in the next round of answers.
Matt: I’ve a number of things I’m looking for, some situational and some more general. The first and most important thing, in my view, is to choose the right races. Race selection is under-rated and yet, if fishing in shallower pools, we have a much better chance of getting a result. Because of the nature of Geegeez Gold, which is geared much more towards form profiles, I tend to look for races where the horses have already run plenty of times (and therefore we know pretty much their level of ability).
In such races, it is rare that one suddenly steps forward significantly, and so it is often a case of finding the one best suited by the conditions. Tools like Instant Expert, the pace tab and, for flat races, draw tab all feature strongly in my analysis.
More specifically, some of the things I’m keen on marking up (because I believe they’re generally under-rated) are extremes of going (heavy, firm) or field size (very small or 16+ runner fields), specialist distances (5f, 9f, 2m2f+ on flat, 3m6f+ over jumps), first/second time scenarios (trainer records with first or second time in a handicap), change of trainer, distance move, and so on.
For those of you more experimental (and experienced), taking a keen interest in sectional data can be rewarding. Identifying horses with a likely similar pace scenario today from when they recorded a strong sectional figure can be very worthwhile. Our Fast Finishers report is valuable to that end, and comes into its own during the AW season in my view.
Ultimately, I’m looking for value by using bits of information others might not be. Choosing the right races is a big leg up, and then Geegeez Gold can help hugely thereafter.
This video post on Race Selection may help.
Sam: In most races I already have an idea of what I’m going to be backing as I’ll be guided by my tracker entries. The races in which my tracker horses are entered are those that initially interest me.
First of all I’ll remind myself of why they are in my tracker, by either checking my notes or checking the strength of their recent runs (in nearly every case I’ll have added them as they’ve run well in a ‘hot’ race). Then I’ll go through the other runners in the race and I’ll check how my tracked runners are likely to be advantaged or disadvantaged by the run of the race based on course pace and draw biases and the pace setup of the race, so heavy use of the draw and pace tabs.
If there are unknowns about any of the runners, particularly ground or distance, I’ll often use the sire tab on the Profiler tool to check their likely suitability. I’ll use all this info to determine whether or not those runners are a bet and if they are, the strength of that bet.
There are also courses where I always have a quick look through to see if there are any in form front runners likely to get an easy lead. I only do this for front runner favouring courses. I use the pace maps to get a quick snapshot of the pace setup and then I check the form of any lone pace angles. If they have the form to be competitive I’ll look at the entire race in more detail before deciding if that front runner is a bet or not.
Chris: As many of you are already aware, I’m predominantly a stats-based bettor and I use the query tool and report suites to highlight runners that might interest me. I then weed out those in races I don’t like getting involved in, sticking mainly (but not exclusively) to handicaps, where there’s plenty of data to work with.
Trainers are generally pretty fixed in their ways and once they find an approach that works for them, they’re loathe to change and that’s why I follow the stats. If trainer xyz excels in staying handicaps on testing ground and he suddenly has one out, then I’ll take a look, then I use the toolkit to assess whether conditions will suit the horse, before moving to pace and where relevant, draw.
But, I should re-iterate what I’ve said elsewhere, lists of horses from statistical reports, either created by myself or by the Geegeez report suite are only ever an initial excuse/reason to look at a race, they’re not a list of bets.
Matt: Two things spring to mind. First, run style - especially front runners from higher draws - can be a gold mine. And secondly, exposed horses (i.e. those that have run many times already and have few secrets from the formbook) in exposed handicaps.
It is often said that such horses “take it in turns to win”. That is true, but the inference - that it is impossible to know which will have its turn today - is incorrect. A combination of a competitive (relative to personal history) handicap mark, favourable draw and/or run style, and the right track and trip normally see a horse in the mix. That will often be factored into its price, of course, but still quite often it is not.
Sam: I still think pace biases are generally underappreciated, both by punters and bookies. In terms of course biases, using Chester as an example, bookmakers are obviously well aware of the effect of the draw and in most 5f handicaps the first three in the betting will be drawn in the lowest stalls. They are strongly reacting to the likely effect of the draw - and rightly so.
However in these same races the odds rarely reflect the likely pace bias to the same degree. You’ll see runners likely to be held up in last heading the betting over something, with not too dissimilar form levels, that will be ridden prominently.
Chester is a pretty obvious one but there are loads of courses in the UK where front runners can be heavily favoured where in my opinion front runners are being allowed to go off at too big a price. So understanding these course biases is crucial for me and it’s obviously something I find Geegeez Gold helps me a lot with.
Chris: At the risk of following the herd, I’d have to agree with my colleagues here. Pace, tempo, race tactics, running styles, call it what you will, but that’s the thing I’ve found has helped the most over the last year since getting more switched on to it. Some tracks suit the front runner, some don’t. Some benefit those who get waited with.
I’d also contend that track layout/tightness of bends and proximity of the first and last bends to the starting/finishing post are often overlooked, as these can massively affect horses drawn closest to the bend. Those who follow F1 will know about racing lines and how approaching a bend from off the rail and almost “cutting the corner” can be the quickest way from a to b, even if it’s a slightly longer route.
Matt: It all depends on what’s happening. Life is busy (good busy, generally!) and I, like everyone else, have to work around that. But I’m able to get a really good feel for at least a few races in relatively short order using the race selection approach and then the Gold toolkit.
When I’m framing a Win 6 syndicate, I’ll spend a good couple of hours (or more) piecing everything together; if betting in a couple of races, it might only be 15-30 minutes.
Over the course of an average week, with say five betting days, I’d be in the form book six to eight hours, I guess.
A weird side note: I don’t generally bet ‘seriously’ on a Saturday. Most pro’s do, and I’m not a pro (though I have a profit expectation from betting, which I’ve realised most years), so fair enough; but I’ve always found it hyper competitive.
Sam: On average I’ll dedicate around 12 hours to form study and research. Obviously this varies depending on the racing, during big meetings such as Royal Ascot I’ll probably spend something closer to 3-4 hours each day but on poorer weeks I might only need an hour or less a day to get through the meetings.
My time spent on racing is split into two general parts. The first would be looking at future races, after the final decs are out, and the second part would be research into past races, looking for future winners and horses to add to my tracker. This second part usually takes a couple of hours a week during the early months of the flat season.
The vast majority of my bets are on flat racing and I tend to only get involved in the very biggest jumps races so I’m far less active/busy in the winter months, preferring to concentrate on the all weather action. This helps me switch off a bit from racing (as much as I can!) for a few months a year and keeps me fresh in time for the next flat season.
Chris: I'd probably say that I actually spend only about an hour a day max, because I do much of my study/research for the next day at the same time as I'm writing Racing Insights. RI is only a two/three minute read at best for most people, but I spend a good couple of hours pulling it together after I've considered other races/angles etc, so it's not an exact science.
I struggle to compartmentalise how much time any specific task takes as I'm often doing two or three things at the same time, but I'd probably say I've got racecards & stats etc in front of my face for three hours a day, except Saturdays, when (a) I don't bet and (b) I tend to take most of the day off.
Matt: I built them so it may be little surprise that I use most of them! I check Fast Finishers daily, and will always scan Trainer Snippets, 2yo 1st run, HC1 and Trainer Change. TJ Combo I’ll look at less than I used to, as typically I’ll get that intel from the jockey form icon on the racecard.
And then, of course, I’ll be all over my Report and QT Angles, which again I view within the racecard of the race I’m looking at.
The inference from the above is that I’m usually a ‘bottom up’ form student, looking within a race for the snippets of interest to me. That’s as different from a ‘top down’ form student, who might go looking for a bet based on, for example, the best TJ combo record on a given day.
There’s no right or wrong way, and I’ve flitted between the two approaches over time (and still do). But, more often than not, I’ll start with the race and work from there. Did I mention race selection is crucial? 😉
Sam: Anyone who has read any of my previous content might be expecting me to say the Hot Form Report - and it’s an excellent report - but most of my hot form research is done before we get to the final declarations and most of the runners I want to follow, because of hot form, are already in my tracker.
The report I get the most use out of is the Trainer Change Report. I’m never quite sure what to do when one of the horses I am tracking changes stable and this is when I’ll check the Trainer Change Report. I’m not only interested in win percentages, place percentages, PRB and so on but I also like to look at the list of qualifying runners, checking their odds, the field sizes they ran in, etc. I’ll use all of this data to make a judgement call on how likely I think they are to run to previous form - or even improve on it. These runners are often off the track for a while before making the stable debut so I’ll always check the trainer record after 60+ day breaks too.
Very recently this report played a crucial role in having a strong bet on Chillsea at Wolverhampton as Tom Ward had a strong record with runners making their debuts after a stable change.
Chris: Probably Horses for Courses and Head to Head from the horse form reports and Trainer Stats / TJC and trainer change from the trainer form reports.
H4C speaks for itself, some horses just go better at certain tracks. There's probably something else affecting the horse on that day, but some are suited by certain conditions. Head to head on its own doesn't tell me too much, but when you delve into that race and assess the margin of defeat, how they've both ran since and the change/swing in weight, it can be very helpful, even if only to rule a bet out.
Most of you have read my stat-based pieces, so my reasons for using Trainer Stats and TJC are pretty obvious, but the Trainer Change angle might not be. A fresh trainer/approach can invigorate a failing horse, but I'm not really just looking for horses that have switched yards. I want to see horses moving yards and then tackling races their previous handler(s) wouldn't have entered them in.
For example a struggling two-mile hurdler moves to a yard with a good record with stayers, he's in the yard for a while and then comes back from a break to run over three miles. he's doing something he's never done, but for a yard successful in that type of race. It's a bit of a leap of faith sometimes, but you have to assume they'll have prepped well.
Matt: This is tricky because for me it’s quite feel based. And, within that, there is no room for atom-splitting. That is, I need to feel like there’s a fair margin in my favour. If I see a horse with a combination of suitable pace setup, back class (i.e. has performed well against conditions historically but not necessarily recently), respectable trainer, and/or interesting change today (1st handicap, up/down in trip, equipment/surgery, trainer switch etc), then I want to know the price.
If I can only get a subset of those criteria boxes ticked, then I want more of a price to counter the decreased likelihood I perceive of the horse winning.
Quite often it is true that if I find a horse with the combination of factors I’m seeking, in a race where many/most of its rivals are less obviously suited, the price is acceptable. This, I think, is because things like run style preference and back form are underrated in the early markets. Those components are typically subsumed into the price by off time but I’m not betting SP or even on the show generally, so that’s the opportunity to find my idea of value. And, of course, Geegeez Gold is set up specifically to isolate this type of runner!
Sam: This is a great question and is probably one of the key factors in separating the good punters from the bad.
I’ll often formulate my bet shortlists before I know what the prices are going to be, or when only William Hill have priced the races up and most will know how reliable those prices are! So there is always a bit of guesswork involved as to what price my intended bets will be.
I’m drawn more to competitive handicaps so the vast majority of my shortlisted bets will be a fair enough price to back, but how do I decide that? I don’t price up the entire race as it would serve no purpose for me, I’m not looking to back or lay anything outside of my shortlisted bets. I will however have a rough price in my head for each runner and that obviously plays a huge roll in what I back and more importantly, how much I stake. The prices I assign to my shortlisted runners are based on how well handicapped I think a horse is, how likely it is to run its race and how deep the opposition is.
There are prices I expect a horse to be and prices I think they should be. These are related but not the same. I might think a runner should be around 6/1 but I expect to get around 10/1. I’d perhaps still have something on even if it was 4/1, but it would be a much smaller bet than intended. Sometimes these runners end up at say 14/1 and in that case I’d have a much bigger bet than expected.
In most cases I expect the bookies to underestimate the horses I’m interested in so I’ll expect to get a bigger price than I think they should be. From there it’s rarely a case of having cut off points about backing them but more of a sliding scale depending on price. The shorter it is compared to what I think it should be, the smaller my stake, the bigger it is in comparison to my expectations, the bigger the stake. In most cases I’d stake more on a 10/1 shot than a 2/1 shot.
Chris: For me, a bet is a bet when the odds reflect an equal or better return compared with the chance I think the horse has of winning.
If I think the horse has a 1 in 3 chance of winning, then I want 9/4 or better. I’m not interested in strike rates, it has to be about profit/ROI and if you don’t get “value” on your bets, you’ll find it very hard to make profit.
Basically a coin toss is a 50/50 chance ie even money. The bookie will give you 10/11 at best, because he needs to make a profit, so conversely I want at least 11/10 on an evens chance.
I suppose the real question is how you decide what kind of chance you think a horse has and that’s where you then need to delve into recent results to see how the horse ran, how its opponents from previous races have fared and also how your horse has performed under similar race conditions previously.
If a horse has recently completed a hat-trick on the Tapeta at Wolverhampton and then runs on Polytrack elsewhere, he’s likely to go off/be priced much shorter than he should be, unless he’s also proven on Poly. The market is often driven by the 5 or 6 results shown to the left of the name, but results with no context are worth very little.
Matt: Part 1: Identification - Exclusively from watching racing, or from sectional times. The key with tracker horses from watching races - or indeed from sectional times - is to look beyond the obvious. The one that flies home for second is missed by nobody; the one who made great late gains into a never nearer sixth and is bred for further is notebook/tracker material. Or the one to run well from the wrong side of the draw, or to only fade late after setting crazy fractions.
Part 2: Documentation - Adding a horse to a tracker requires context. Here’s a (convenient, of course) example from my own tracker of a horse that just won:
30/12/21: HC1, close up before outpaced and then staying on well at the death, btn 2L. By Al Kazeem, a step up in trip should see him go close next time.
I usually add the trip/class/going it ran over. That race was over 9.5f at Wolves and today she won over 11f at Southwell; she needed every yard of the distance and will probably improve again for a further increase in trip.
Importantly, I would have let her beat me at shorter trips because I will only bet tracker horses in the circumstances I’ve identified. Obviously that doesn’t always pan out as I’d like, but it is very important discipline overall, and the key to tracker success.
Part 3: Housekeeping - Horses cannot and should not stay on the tracker indefinitely. At least every two to three months (depending on how much weeding your tracker needs - more entries equals more weeding!), have a look through and cull at least a small percentage. And beware the cliff horse: if you can’t bear to see it win unsupported, just cut your stakes back and understand where you are emotionally with the horse!!
Sam: Anyone who has read any of my content on Geegeez will know I’m a big fan of hot form and that is responsible for nearly all of the horses that are added to my tracker.
Every couple of weeks, especially in the first four or five months of the flat season, I go through every single handicap race result. I normally try to stay two or three weeks behind to ensure a few runners have already come out of the races I am looking at. From there, using the brilliant Future Form tab on the race results pages on Geegeez, I either ignore the race if it’s not working out, bookmark the results page if there isn’t enough evidence yet about the strength of the form and if the race is working out I’ll add the most interesting runners to my tracker.
I’ll revisit those bookmarks regularly and once there is enough subsequent form to make a judgement I’ll delete the bookmark, adding runners from the race if the form is working out or ignoring the race if the form hasn’t worked out. .
I probably only back about half of the runners on my tracker each day, if that. Some I’m extremely keen to be with next time and others I’m only interested in them in certain circumstances. They might be course specialists, runners that need a very strong pace to aim at, etc.
Chris: To be honest, I don’t use trackers as much as (a) you’d expect or (b) others do, but I’ll add horses to my tracker, if I feel they were “unlucky” in running or possibly didn’t get the best ride (yes, it happens). I’ll also add winners who just did enough to win, but looked like they had plenty in hand, but there’s no real science to that, it’s pure opinion formed from watching the races.
Once I start tracking a horse, I’ll only leave them there for a couple or three races, before revisiting them to see if they’re still worth keeping an eye on. Quite often, they’ll have won and have been weighted out of it by the handicapper or conversely, they’ve produced nothing and have gone backwards. With the latter, I tend to just remove them, with the former, I’ll often leave them on the tracker, but I’ll add a note about what mark/OR/class etc I’d like to see it drop back to.
Matt: I don’t have time to watch a lot of race replays, so it’s one of those things where I know - and advocate - that reviewing races will improve the selection process; but I, like everyone, have to find an optimum approach that fits with everything else I do.
The advantage I have over many is that I do watch a lot of racing live whilst working, so I’m able to add to my tracker; and, furthermore, I review sectional times so I’m not just relying on the ol’ peepers, which can deceive us sometimes.
Sam: I wasn’t a massive race re watcher until a couple of years ago, preferring to go almost 100% off form lines and in running comments, however in recent years I have started to watch replays and I’ve found it has helped massively.
The main reason I watch a race replay is to make my own judgements about horses that suffered trouble in running, were having their first runs after a break or may benefit from a change in distance.
I find that in running comments often do a poor job of describing how much traffic some horses encounter and even more so how much running they have left at the finish. I can usually make a much better judgement after watching a reply.
A not so great run after a break can mean a lot of things, and I’m no expert at deducing how much a horse is likely to come on for the run, but you can usually get an idea about if it was just race fitness they were lacking or if they’ve lost their ability. If I’m taking a positive view about something it will usually be because the horse has traveled well until a furlong or so out but just weaked more than most in the final 200 yards.
It’s a similar feeling with horses changing trips. Just because a horse finishes well it doesn’t mean they need to go up in trip (I’m normally looking for something that was outpaced a couple of furlongs out). Likewise a horse that fades doesn’t necessarily want to go down in trip. Replays are more useful than in running comments when sussing these out.
Chris: In-running comments can only give you a brief overview of one other person’s opinion and to take them at face value is akin to following the selections made by a newspaper “tipster” on a Saturday, where he’ll select a horse from every race. He hasn’t time to do that selection process properly, just as the in-running person doesn’t really have the time (and probably inclination) to do a thorough job.
That said, I do look at in-running comments from a couple of sources initially to see if there’s a common suggestion as to why/how a horse ran like it did and then I’ll go back and look at the race for myself, with half an eye out for something I’m already expecting to happen.
Matt: This is not really my thing because, basically, I am very bad at the ratings side of the game. I’ve always felt that, especially in exposed form handicaps (i.e. where they’ve all run a hundred times already), it is the horse best suited to conditions that makes the best bet.
In other words, I’m trusting the handicapper to have pegged the approximate ability level of a horse by the time it has run, say, six or eight times; and thereafter I can use the evidence of the form book to see how it stacks up against the race class.
I wouldn’t back the best horse in a race (in form terms) if it didn’t have the best fit from a draw, pace, ground, class, field size perspective. In fact, that sort of fella makes the market for the less obvious (ostensibly, at least) one I do want to back!
When it comes to such as novice races, nurseries and early season three-year-old handicaps, I defer to others, or to the MO of the trainer or any pedigree hints. Generally, I avoid those races because I don’t know enough - and there are too many capable of leaping forward from what they’ve shown so far.
Sam: When it comes to race conditions I tend to be a bit more black and white rather than trying to assign precise marks horses can win off. Instead I initially concentrate more on drawing up a shortlist of those that I think will run to form and are capable of being competitive. If conditions (going, distance, pace and draw mainly) are suitable they’ll probably run to form and my judgement on how competitive they’ll be is largely based on the strength of their recent form, by looking at the subsequent runs of those who finished around them previously (looking for hot or cold form).
If I need to decide which runner from a shortlist of two or three is the ‘one’, I still won’t necessarily assign a value of how well in, in terms of pounds, the runners might be. Instead I’ll usually consider how much improvement they might have if they are lightly raced (based on trainer, breeding, visuals) and also a lot may come down to how well positioned they should be based on how the race will be run. For more exposed runners I’ll consider previous marks they’ve run well off in similar conditions. That’s not to say if they’ve won off 88 and are rated 80 today I’ll assume they are 8lbs well in, more so that they should have some wiggle room off their current mark.
The one time I really do tend to assign a more precise ‘potential’ rating, rather than just working off ‘well handicapped in conditions’ v ‘not well handicapped in conditions’, is when evaluating some hot form lines. If the winner of a race has subsequently rated 16lbs higher and the 3rd has rated 12lbs higher, it’s often safe to assume the runner up can rate around 14lbs higher. There are a lot of other factors involved in evaluating that but it’s a simplistic example.
Chris: Ah, ratings! Personally, I find them quite unreliable : just look around, there are hundreds of ratings available for every race and they rarely agree with each other. Ratings tend not to take into consideration race conditions and those along with pace/draw are more important factors, as are horse/trainer/jockey form.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a place for ratings as a guide, but as an example a horse running to a mark of 80 over 5f on good ground at Brighton probably won’t run to that mark over 6f on good to soft ground at Haydock, where good to soft generally means soft! So the horse may be rated at 80 under optimum conditions, but does he get 6f? can he handle mud? If his past form suggests he can do 6f on softer ground, then you could rate him at 82+ and so on.
Horses are given a mark based on what they’ve already done and so that weights for their next race can be allotted. Our job is to work out how they’ll actually run in the future under different race conditions and mentally adjust their official mark.
As longer term readers/subscribers will know, we're constantly investing in improving geegeez.co.uk and, in particular, the toolkit that is Geegeez Gold. In the past year and a half, we've added a new metric (Percentage of Rivals Beaten), the Profiler tab in the cards, a more mobile friendly version of the entire site, new reports for 1st time headgear and sectional fast finishers, and a whole host of smaller changes.
Many of those changes were perhaps geared towards more dedicated or experienced bettors; mindful of that, we wanted to do something that would have broader appeal and, arguably, would be more accessible to our army of casual/time-pressed players. And so, I'd like to introduce you to Bet Finder, the sixth tool in the Geegeez Gold kit bag, and free to all registered users for the remainder of September.
To help you get up and running straight away, there is a video below where I put Bet Finder through its paces and, after that, some words and pictures about the new tool for those who prefer to read than to listen.
Bet Finder is a tool that allows the quick filtering of the hundreds of horses entered each day down to a handful of interest to you. It is literally push button easy to use.
Consisting of two tabs - Filters and Qualifiers - we begin on the Filters view, which looks like this:
Above is the 'fully open' view, and users can hide or show all sections with the '+' and '-' buttons top left:
Clicking on any blue header block will open that specific section. Here I've opened the 'Basic Filters' section:
There are buttons top right for 'Today' and 'Tomorrow', and to 'Reset' the filters.
[Note that when looking at the 'Tomorrow' data, some ratings do not get published until the evening.]
Selecting a filter will highlight it and reduce the value in brackets on the Qualifiers tab button - the number of qualifying horses satisfying the selected criteria.
In the example above, I've selected 'Beaten Favourite last time out' and 'Up in Class'. The Qualifiers tab tells me there are three horses matching those criteria.
Clicking the 'Qualifiers' button displays them:
The qualifier table can be sorted by any of the column headings, and clicking on the race time will take you to the race in question for further analysis if you're that way inclined.
There is a green 'CSV' button top right in the 'Qualifiers' view from which users may download the filtered list of qualifiers.
Beneath the Bet Finder tool itself is an explanation of what the filters are. Here, for example, are the explainers for 'Advanced Trainer Form Positive':
Bet Finder can be found from the Tools page here, or from the Tools menu anywhere on site.
If you want it, yes! From now until the end of September, Bet Finder is free to all registered users. From October onwards, it will move into the premium Geegeez Gold service.
If you're not already a registered subscriber, you can register here. If you are, and/or you're a Gold subscriber, just make sure you're logged in and go to the Bet Finder page.
I very much hope you'll find this new tool useful, and if you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please do share them in the 'replies' space below.
And if you're enjoying some success with a particular combination of filters and are happy to share, please do!
Thanks, and Good Luck!
Matt
Another month, another set of new features within Geegeez Gold designed to help you know more than other people about a race.
Before we start...
Mobile users hankering after the good old bad old days of pinch and swipe to expand the desktop view on a phone...
...can still do that!
Within the Chrome browser, tap the three dots menu option top right and then scroll down to "Desktop Site" and tap the check box. (See image)
Hey presto - it's back to the future!
If you use non-Android type of mobile device, this google search will likely find the right answer.
I hope that's helpful for anyone still struggling to come to terms with our slightly different mobile layout.
Right, back in the room. What's new in this release?
The first of two new reports is the long-awaited Fast Finishers report. It is based on our sectional timing database and highlights horses that may have performed better - or may be capable of performing better - than first met the eye. These are typically horses that expended their energy sub-optimally for one reason or another, the contention being that with a more even distribution of their effort they could improve.
The report highlights horses which have completed the closing section of their race notably faster (2.5% or more) than the race finishing speed.
The report looks like this:
The race tempo - three coloured and labelled blocks - is included so users may compare with the pace projection in the PACE tab for today’s race.
The report can be filtered by finishing position in the ‘Fast Finisher’ race (FF Pos), number of runs since the FF race, the race finishing speed percentage (FSP), the horse FSP, and/or the sectional upgrade (Sec Upg) earned.
HINT: Look for either a recent run, or an older run where conditions match today’s. Also, importantly, consider whether the race today is likely to be run at a similar tempo to the one where the fast finish was achieved.
Also new in this release is something we're calling HS1 - no relation to the high speed rail link whose implementation polarising opinion almost as much as the two parts of the country it is slated to unite!
This view displays the two-year record of trainers running horses for the first time in specific headgear, or since undergoing publicly recorded surgery. It's a similar layout - the same, in fact - to Trainer and Sire Snippets, but naturally with different content.
Here's how it looks:
The 'All' tab is a rollup of the content from the individual headgear and surgery views, and may be the handiest digest on a daily basis.
It is worth saying that, in the main, the application of headgear should not be seen as a positive and, as such, most trainers have negative records. In the same vein, though to a lesser extent, surgical interventions imply a degree of dissatisfaction with prior track performance.
Note: horses gelded or having had wind surgery prior to their first start are excluded from the report, as are horses with a first time headgear combination (e.g. blinkers and tongue tie).
Sometimes we just want to know the results from a single meeting, say for example when we've made a placepot bet or the like. On busier racing days it can be difficult to isolate those races of interest from the swathe of results... until now. We've added a handy course dropdown so you can get just the results from the meeting you're interested in.
It lives in the top block, here:
...and has very few surprises. In the below example, I've selected Lingfield on Saturday (where geegeez-sponsored rider Marco Ghiani recorded a near 153/1 double - go Marco!)...
Fast Results Course Dropdown
Some people like to assess races blind - that is, without knowing the market - and we encourage users to try this at least from time to time as a barometer of race reading skill. To facilitate that, we already have an option on your My Geegeez page to show/hide odds.
But now we've made it even simpler to hide (and then display) the odds with a toggle button right in the race details bar. It can be found in the blue bar, and looks like this:
Odds toggle
As well as the above, we've made a few bug fixes and small changes, as follows:
Up until now, if you wanted to add comments or ratings into the racecard option behind the 'calculator' icon, you needed to include an estimate of odds. Now you don't if you don't want to. It's still reasonable practice to do that, in order to see how close to 100% (ish) book you can get, but it should be your choice. It is now.
We recently introduced a bug to the sortation of the 'by time' view of today's races - a very useful feature, for me at least. That's fixed in this release.
In line with other reports, we now have a csv export function on the Report Angles report. It's the green button top right.
**
As always with new stuff, there is scope for issues to arise, either with the new stuff itself or, very occasionally, breaking something existing. If you spot anything we've missed, please do drop us a line to let us know. We'll get it sorted pronto.
Hope you like these new components. There are no game changers this time, but a good deal more helpful insight for your horseracing betting.
Matt
If you logged into the geegeez racecards this morning and were surprised or confused by what you saw, sorry about that, and let me explain.
The video below highlights the four small (but highly visible) changes made, as do the words and pictures beneath the video - if you prefer to read than to watch.
We've tidied up the racecard menu page further by hiding all races behind their meeting header bar, as you can see below.
Clicking on a blue bar, for example, Naas, opens the races for that meeting:
Clicking the '+' or '-' buttons top left will expand all or collapse all meetings. Nice and tidy.
We've also added links to our Irish racecourse information pages. These are packed full of intel regarding course layout, draw or run style biases, top trainers and jockeys, upcoming races, recent results, latest news and more.
We now have these in place for all courses and I encourage you to check them out if you haven't already, especially for courses you're maybe less familiar with.
We've streamlined the mobile menu to provide more space in your device's 'viewport' for the actual race you're looking at. To do that, we simply removed some of the date buttons and placed them behind a dropdown.
As you can see below, things are a bit slicker now.
The sole 'new data' upgrade is the addition of race conditions information. This is found in the blue race bar on the right hand side. Clicking on that link reveals, inline, the conditions for the race. This is especially useful in non-handicap races where the weights horses carry are often a little confusing without such insight.
There is, as ever, more coming soon, so stay tuned!
Matt
I'm excited to share that, later this week, we'll be introducing the new mobile version of the Geegeez Gold racecards and form tools. There will be little to no change to the desktop cards and tools, but users on tablet and mobile will see a quite distinctive new style. In the video below, I walk through how things will be in the new 'better mobile' world.
NOTE: This is change. Humans don't like change. Some things will require a little getting used to. Stick with it, please. I have, and I can tell you I now find the new mobile cards miles better than they were (and miles better than any others out there 😉 ). But, of course, I would say that, wouldn't I?!
Here's the vid...
Not before time, in fact long after time is probably fairer to say, we're moving our services into the mobile world. The truth is that this has been something I've considered, and subsequently deferred, multiple times annually for the past five years.
The reason? It's really difficult to fit all of the racecard content you know and love into a smartphone screen (called a 'viewport').
My take has always been that it's better not to do something at all than to make a token effort at it, and so we've always shied from a mobile version of Geegeez Gold. Until now.
A further admission is that the reason we are working hard on a mobile version right now is that our hand has been forced somewhat. Google, who are a major source of new users discovering geegeez.co.uk, have since the start of 2021 introduced a 'mobile first' ranking policy. In plain English, if your site doesn't work well on a mobile device, you cannot expect to appear anywhere near the top of the search results. Bummer.
Anyway, that's the back story to how we've been working hard to bring the racecards and form tools fully into the mobile-iverse. And in the remainder of this article, I want to share where we've got to. As you'll see, we're not there yet; and as you'll also see we have had to make some concessions because of space constraints. It's my view that the more dedicated users will always prefer a desktop (or laptop) device to undertake their form study; but I also feel increasingly that we can offer a hefty subset of the most popular components on the smart device in your pocket. And tablet users may find their experience matches that of desktop/laptop.
IMPORTANT: THE DESKTOP VERSION YOU'RE USED TO WILL NOT CHANGE!
We're still working on the racecards and results tabs - they are the most complicated because they have the most features and functions - but the remainder of the racecards have been mobile-ized, as follows...
The first page you land on when looking at a day's racing is the menu page. Desktop looks like this:
The new mobile version looks like this. The date buttons, plus search and tracker, have been neatly added at the top, with the dropdowns for all races and reports still available.
Below that, as you can see, part of the race titles cannot be seen, but these are visible by dragging across with your finger. The mobile version uses something called 'horizontal scroll' to enable users to easily view data at the right hand end of tables, and the first instance of that is on the cards menu.
Geegeez mobile racecard menu page
Desktop Full Form looks like this and, of course, that is a LOT of content to fit into a mobile window, especially in portrait (i.e. how we normally hold our phones: taller and thinner, rather than the shorter wider phone-on-its-side 'landscape') view.
The mobile Full Form also uses horizontal scroll in the data areas (second image below). We've recreated everything from the desktop version, including the 'show/hide' ability for Filters, Race Record, Race Entries and Race Form. These are how the Filters display on mobile.
Full Form race filters have been faithfully replicated on mobile
And here is the data content area:
Full Form data uses horizontal scroll to incorporate all information on a mobile viewport
In the above image, I've scrolled across a little so both the start and end of the table data are out of sight. Having been playing for a few days, this is a surprisingly useful way of displaying more information than there is room for on screen. [Of course, more is visible in landscape mode, i.e. if you rotate your phone 90 degrees; and tablet presents a fantastic - probably better even than desktop - experience].
Profiler is also a complete and faithful replication of the desktop version, again using horizontal scroll to display the elements at the right hand end of tables. In this tab, most users are interested in the left hand side of the cyan highlighted rows and so this will work 'as is' for them.
Profiler works pretty much *native* on mobile
Instant Expert has presented a lot of challenges, for two reasons. Firstly, it is our most popular view and so absolutely has to be the best it can be. Secondly, there is a huge amount of intel crammed into the view. Alas, those two elements are not especially compatible, so we've designed different views for portrait and landscape.
Looking at your phone in portrait (tall, thin) mode will display a basic overview of Instant Expert:
Instant Expert in portrait is a basic overview of the relevant form credentials of the field
We've retained 'win/place', 'all/hcap' and the date range filters, as well as the horse/trainer/jockey/sire and race code dropdown options. But we were unable to include the ratings column or the range dropdowns (e.g. going from soft to heavy, etc) in this view.
You'll also notice that the columns have gone from three colour blocks to one - again due to space limitations. The numbers in the blocks are 'runs' (for instance, Al Ozzdi has had three runs on today's going, the 'Go' column) and column sortation is done on the basis of percentages. While that is confusing on the face of it, it enables the retention of two key pieces of information: first, sorting by the horse with the best performance in percentage terms; and second, understanding how many runs that percentage was achieved against (i.e. not discounting a horse who has failed only once against a given criterion and, equally, not marking up a horse too much for going well just once against a given criterion).
Hopefully that all makes sense: the summary is that we've distilled all we can in terms of the available space. And I'm pretty happy with what we've achieved here.
In landscape - with your phone viewed on its side - you will see a much more familiar Instant Expert. Indeed, you'll see everything as you'd expect, including the inline form when tapping on a colour block.
Landscape Instant Expert is very close to the existing desktop version
All sortation of columns etc works as you know and love, and I'm delighted we've been able to exactly replicate the existing Instant Expert on mobile devices. It was a lot more fiddly than might first appear!
The pace tab is another that fits perfectly on your phone when viewed in landscape (side on), and we again use horizontal scroll to allow you to see everything in the more natural portrait mode. Here's portrait:
Pace tab is replicated faithfully and uses horizontal scroll for its portrait mode
Again, I've found this to be highly user-friendly even in portrait mode, and a big step up on the current messing around with pinch and zoom involved when out and about.
Draw is a clean experience even in portrait, the two slight changes being horizontal scroll to access the right hand columns in the tables; and the charts being a little more 'square' than is the case on desktop.
Top section of mobile draw tap in portrait mode
I've scrolled across to the right of the table in the above screenshot. As you can see, there are a lot of data in there, so we've added faint grey divider lines to break it up a touch. Still, it is a dense forest of numbers, I grant you.
Below is the heat map in mobile portrait view.
Draw Pace Heat Map in portrait mode
The odds view is a simple one and, though we've moved the form and 'best' columns, I don't think we've lost any of the value of this quick digest of the market.
Mobile odds tab view
So that's where we're at with the development. Right now, we're working on the card and results tabs, which will not include all current features I'm afraid - at least not in portrait mode - simply because of space constraints. Indeed, they will likely look more different than any of the other tabs (except portrait Instant Expert). After that, I'll need to go over everything to ensure it all 'hangs together' as it should. We will be working through the report suite and form tools as well in due course, but the main focus at this time has been on the racecards.
It's always a kiss of death to put release date timescales on these things, so what follows is assuming no major dramas manifest in the coming days: I hope we'll have the mobile cards live before the end of the month. *crosses fingers - and, indeed, legs*
This has been a thorny technical challenge because we didn't build 'from the ground up' but, rather, repurposed our existing content into a mobile format. But we're building it intuitively and to add as much value as possible while you're away from your desk. I promise, bathroom break form study will have never felt so good!
Matt
p.s. we are also working on sectional 'fast finishers' features which ought to be on stream in March. So much to follow in 2021: we're always re-investing in your Geegeez 🏆
Our first upgrades of 2021 are now live!
We've added:
- Dam data
- PRB by Race Code on Full Form
- Prize Money (win and total)
- Season Date search on Full Form (due imminently)
All of these can be seen in the five minute video below; and they are, of course, explained in more detail in our comprehensive User Guide (click here for that).
I very much hope you'll find them useful!
Matt
We're constantly striving to improve Geegeez Gold, our flagship racecards and form tool service. After a few quieter months - lots going on in the background - we're about to inject a new metric into Gold.
We've deliberately kept it away from the more commonly used numbers, simply because if you don't want to engage with this, we don't want it in your way. At the same time, I very much believe you should take heed of the new number and that's why I've put this post together.
So, what is the new number? Well, it's not exactly brand new as we already display Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) within our draw content. But we're now extending it calculation and display to trainer, jockey and sire data. Here is some more information on Percentage of Rivals Beaten...
Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) is a calculation based on a horse's finishing position in relation to field size. It makes key distinctions between a horse finishing, say, third in a five-horse race (PRB 50%, two rivals beaten, beaten by two rivals) and finishing third in an eleven-horse race (PRB 80%, eight rivals beaten, beaten by two rivals).
For a collection of results - for example, a trainer's record over the last year - we take an average of all the individual PRB scores.
On geegeez.co.uk, we express PRB as a number between 0 and 1. So, in the examples above, 50% is 0.5 and 80% is 0.8.
What is convenient about PRB is that a par score is always 50% of rivals beaten, or 0.5. This means that a trainer with a one-year PRB of 0.55, 55% of rivals beaten, is doing very well; conversely, a trainer with 0.45 as his PRB is under-performing in finishing position terms.
It is always important to remember that finishing position is not the only number in town and, as with all numbers, it should be used sensibly and in concert with other metrics.
PRB is useful because it helps to make small datasets bigger. In racing we are almost always hamstrung by small datasets, relative to what general statistics would consider so at any rate. And when we then try to discern knowledge from the data by looking only at wins we ignore seven-eighths of the information we have (assuming an average field size of eight, one winner, seven losers).
If we had 1,000,000 wins to consider, that wouldn't be much of an issue. But we don't. We have much smaller groups of wins and runs with which to work.
Historically I've used place percentages to enlarge the positive to negative comparison: using our eight-runner average, we now have three 'wins' (placed horses) for five losses (unplaced horses). That's much better but still lacking in nuance.
PRB awards 'score' to every runner except tail end Charlie in every race (ignoring non-completions which are dealt with separately - an explanation of how we've accounted for them will appear in the user guide as it will add little value here). This has some challenges of its own; for instance, a horse that went hard from the front and is still battling for third place will be ridden right to the line, whereas that same horse may be eased off if/when four others have already passed it: it has given its running already and there is little be gained from finishing fifth or ninth.
Such issues are accommodated up to a point by squaring the PRB figure, and you can see how that manages the curve in the post linked to at the bottom of this one if you're that way inclined.
The crux is this: PRB is useful because it helps us understand the totality of performance of a dataset rather than just a fraction (win or place, for instance).
PRB has utility in isolation because every score can be compared to 0.5 to understand whether the thing being measured - trainer, jockey or sire performance in our case - is better or worse than what might be expected.
But, of course, we should expect that, for example, Paul Nicholls will have a far higher one-year National Hunt handicap PRB figure than Jimmy Moffatt. He does, 0.62 vs 0.5 at time of writing. But knowing that is unlikely to add to our bottom line; at least not in or of itself.
As it happens, both have been profitable to follow blindly in handicaps in the past twelve months: Nicholls has an A/E of 1.05 (and an SP win profit of +16.70) while Moffatt has 1.26 / +21.50.
If anything, Nicholls' figures are more impressive, for all that Moffatt's may be more sustainable.
What PRB tells us is the amount of merit in unplaced runs. It should be used to support understanding of an entity, rather than as an end in itself. And it is especially helpful in rendering the inference of small samples sizes slightly less of an act of folly.
Regular Gold users will know that PRB - and its close relatives, PRB^2 and PRB3 - have been happily adding value to our draw content for some time.
And now (next week), PRB appears within trainer, jockey and sire data on the racecards and in reports. It is on the far right, out of trouble for those not (yet) interested in its utility.
On reports, it can be found in the same rightmost column location:
Use it or don't use it, but I'd suggest you make yourself aware, as a minimum, of what Percentage of Rivals Beaten is; and when it might pay to keep it in mind.
You can read more about all of our key metrics - A/E, IV and PRB - in this post.
Matt
p.s. more new features coming soon!
On Wednesday evening, I went live (gulp) for the first of four webinars covering betting on horse racing, and doing it with Geegeez Gold.
In this initial broadcast, the general subject was 'setting up to succeed'. It's a subject that most losers overlook, and no winners overlook!
As one wag (I hope he was joking!) said in the comments, I've a face made for radio - and this is largely a 'talking head' production - but I think/hope there will be some useful takeaways.
Referenced were:
- The art of the possible
- Limitations: Time and Overwhelm
- Odds and the Market
- Discipline
- Staking and Value
Matt
p.s. beneath the video box is an image referred to in the staking section, which is useful when working out bank size.
In this very quick (11 minute) video, I highlight a couple of horses I'm interested in at Cheltenham's Showcase meeting this afternoon. Both are proven in conditions and have a good chance to outrun their odds. Both are easy to find using Geegeez Gold's Instant Expert tool.
See what you think...
And don't forget our special Winter Season Ticket offer, which will give you access to all of these brilliant tools for the entire National Hunt season for just £149.
We've added a new tab to the racecards called PROFILER and, in this video, I explain what it is, what it does and how it works. It's an exciting new development that looks sure to throw up some great insights, especially in terms of trainer and sire angles.
Watch the video and then have a play with Profiler!
Matt
We are hopefully going to be hearing a lot more about sectional timing - more importantly, what sectional timing tells us about how horses performed and races were run - this season and beyond. With that in mind, I thought I'd offer a little refresher... to myself as much as anyone!
I, and Tony Keenan before me, have written about the subject and I'd encourage you to read those articles:
What Is The Point of Sectional Timing in Horse Racing
For those who want to get stuck into the mechanics, I highly recommend Simon Rowlands' Introduction to Sectional Timing, which you can download here.
If you favour speaky over reading, the video below is part 'why sectionals' and part 'how it works round here' and includes the answer to the crucial question, "How do I switch it on in my geegeez setup?"
Secure a beverage and give it a peruse if you fancy...
Oh, and any questions, leave a comment below. If I don't know the answer (quite possible), I will try to find someone who does.
Matt
In this fifth and final video preview of the week, I use the racecards, form tools and reports to isolate a few interesting horses in the seven older-horse handicaps taking place on Friday.
This series has been about process rather than desperately trying to pick winners. Happily, it has illustrated the process with numerous scores including 22/1 Zodiakos on the very first day. Whether you backed any of them or not, I hope you've gained some insights into the kit we have here and what it can do for YOU.
Most importantly, I hope you've seen that fun and profit are not mutually exclusive and that winning from betting on horses is possible.
Here's my final episode of the weekend. With luck there will be something of value within...