Tag Archive for: SR Ratings

Combining Pace and SR Ratings, Part 2

/in /by

A four-week trial of combining Pace with SR Ratings, Part 2

This the second in a double header where I am sharing a very simple ‘system’ which I tested over a four-week period from May 1st 2026 to May 28th 2026, writes Dave Renham. Before reading on, it would make sense to read the first piece if not done already and that can be found here.

Not everyone is a fan of systems, but my racing journey was enriched by reading books and articles by the racing systems ‘king’, Nick Mordin. Hence, although I don’t tend to use rigid systems per se when selecting my bets, there are systematic elements that I do lean on within the whole process.

It should be noted that in order to find these system selections, a Geegeez Gold membership is required as that includes access to some of the key data needed.

To recap here are the ‘system’ rules:

  1. UK Handicap races only
  2. Race Distance 5f to 1m1f
  3. The Percentage of Rivals figure (PRB) for the ‘led’ group on the pace tab for the specific race conditions must be 0.60 or higher
  4. Horse must have one of the top three pace scores for the race
  5. Horse must have one of the top three SR ratings for the race

Note that if there were two joint third rated pace horses then both would potentially become a qualifier if either or both of their SR rating positions were also in the top three. If there were three or more joint thirds, then I would count the two with the highest most recent race pace scores. In terms of SR rating joint thirds, I need to include them all as I have no way of splitting them. Also, if a horse had only three previous pace race scores, I would use their pace average figure to compare with the four race averages that most horses have. In this case, the horses with the three highest averages across either three or four past races would count. I did not consider horses with one or two past scores.

I mentioned in the first article that I am only using handicap races, as they give us the most reliable results for this type of idea.

In that first part I shared the results for weeks one and two. Again, just to recap, these are below with profit/losses based on BSP (Betfair SP) less 2% commission.

Week 1

 

Table of betting statistics: Bets 29, Wins 6, Win% 20.69, P/L BSP 12, ROI BSP 41.38.

 

Week 2

 

Table of betting stats: Bets 20, Wins 4, Win% 20, P/L BSP 16.39, ROI BSP 81.95

 

First two weeks combined

 

Table of betting stats: Bets 49, Wins 10, Win% 20.41, P/L BSP 28.39, ROI BSP 57.94

 

So, all in all, the first fortnight delivered some positive early findings. Of course, the sample size at this juncture was still relatively small. However, a further positive after these 49 races was that there had been 11 second places as well.

Time to move into week 3.

Week 3

The results for the third week were as follows, with winners highlighted in red. There were four qualifiers where the PRB ‘led’ sample size was small and those horses have an asterisk next to their name:

 

Informational table of race results spanning 15–21 May 2026, listing Date, Course, Horse, PRB 'Led', Fin Pos, BSP, SR rank, and Pace rank for each entry (courses include York, Ripon, Lingfield, etc.).

 

The last two days of the third week (20th and 21st) saw an excellent run of results with six wins from just 13 qualifiers. Previous to that there had been four winners from 29 showing a small loss of £3.88. The overall figures for the week ended up like this:

 

Table of betting stats: Bets 42, Wins 10, Win% 23.81, P/L BSP 12.93, ROI BSP 30.79

 

We saw the best weekly strike rate to date, but there were less near misses with only three second places (five thirds). Hence, there could be a valid argument that this week was a tad lucky, with so many winners. However, as we know it is better to be lucky than good. Although even better to be lucky and good!

I was three weeks in now and the overall results read as follows:

 

Table of betting statistics: Bets 91, Wins 20, Win% 21.98, P/L BSP 41.32, ROI BSP 45.41

 

All three weeks were consistent with win rates around the 20% mark and solid profits each time. Will we see a similar pattern in week four? Well, let’s find out.

Week 4

The results for the final week are shown in the table below with winners once more highlighted in red:

 

Table of 2026 racing results showing date, course, horse, PRB 'Led', final position, BSP, SR rank, and pace rank for races at Goodwood, York, Windsor, Redcar, Bath, Lingfield, Hamilton, Beverley, and Ripon (22–28 May 2026).

 

The final week of the four-week experiment went with a bang rather than a whimper with ten winners from 29 runners. There were five seconds, too, so over half of the qualifiers finished in the first two. The profit and loss figures are shown below:

 

Compact table of betting stats: Bets 29, Wins 10, Win% 34.48, P/L BSP 70.34, ROI BSP 242.55.

 

A huge profit and returns across the seven days of over 242 pence in the £. Yes, this bottom line was helped by a BSP winner priced 38.53 in Partisan Hero, but even if we take that winner out, after commission, profits still stood at +33.56.

With the four weeks up, I can now share the final totals:

 

Table showing betting stats: Bets 120, Wins 30, Win% 25, P/L BSP 111.65, ROI BSP 93.04.

 

This has been a pretty amazing run of results across the 28 days to create such figures. Of course, we cannot get too carried away, as 120 bets across four weeks is essentially a snapshot. However, it is a snapshot that makes me want to expand my research to other weeks and months and see what they bring.

So far, I have shared just the results without doing any additional digging into the underlying numbers; I'm sure there are some extras for us starting with the average PRB figures for the system qualifiers week by week. The graph below shows the splits:

 

Bar chart of average weekly PRB figures (May 1–28, 2026): Week1 0.66, Week2 0.68, Week3 0.58, Week4 0.71 on pink background

 

When analysing PRBs we need to appreciate that the average figure for all runners in all races is 0.50. This is the benchmark to judge against. Anything above 0.55 is usually seen to be positive and once we get to 0.60 and above then we have a strong positive. Therefore, for three of the four weeks to have average figures for all qualifying horses of over 0.65 is exceptional. Even week 3’s figure of 0.58 is very decent. These findings give me much more confidence in the small four-week sample I have looked at.

PRBs are a useful metric because in many respects they expand sample size by considering all runners in each race. For the record the overall average PRB for qualifiers across all four weeks was a very strong 0.65.

I want to focus now on the 30 winners and see which run style they employed in the individual races where they came home in front. Being in the top three of the racecard pace figures for their specific races means I would have expected a led or prominent style in the race to be more likely than a mid-division or hold up one. The graph below shows the splits in terms of percentage of runners within each run style group:

 

Bar chart of run styles among winners: Led 50%, Prominent 33.3%, Mid Division 13.3%, Held Up 3.3% (May 2026)

 

As predicted (and hoped), we see that most of the winning qualifiers had a led or prominent style; in fact, five from every six winners did. This helps cement further how effective the four racehorse pace figures in the Geegeez Racecard are in terms of helping to predict run style.

Finally, I wanted to look at the results based on their actual ranking within the SR rank and pace ranks. Hence top rated in both would count as a 1,1 in the table below.

 

Betting performance table: SR Rank vs Pace Rank with Bets, Wins, Win% and P/L BSP (red for losses).

 

Of course, as we have nine combinations the sample sizes for each are very small. However, what was interesting was when I split the results up comparing those where at least one of the two rankings was top (e.g. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/1 and 3/1) compared with those that weren’t. Here are the splits:

 

Informational table: two rows of betting stats with bets, wins, and win rate; row1 73 bets, 20 wins, 27.4%; row2 47 bets, 10 wins, 21.28%.

 

Those with at least one top ranked position did much better. Again, the important caveat is that the samples are quite modest. However, there is a big difference between the PRBs for each group with the 'top ranked' group averaging 0.67 and the other at 0.59.

 

*

 

That's enough for this two-parter but I hope, if nothing else, the performance of this Geegeez Gold system, albeit over just four weeks, has provided food for thought. Personally, I will be doing more digging into this system, that is guaranteed!

Until next time...

- DR

More on Combining Pace and SR Ratings

/in /by

A four-week trial of combining Pace with SR Ratings, Part 1

Back in May of 2025 I wrote a couple of articles looking at 5-furlong handicaps with the focus being the scores for each horse found in Geegeez Racecard pace tab, writes Dave Renham. In the second of those pieces, which can be read here, I looked at a set of results based on the top three horses ranked in terms of pace scores in their specific race, when they also appeared in the top three of Peter May’s SR ratings for said race.

The findings were extremely promising over the whole year for horses in the top three of both as the table below shows:

 

Table showing betting statistics: Bets 809, Wins 151, Win% 18.67, P/L BSP 82.04, ROI BSP 10.14.

 

Considering these results came from combining all UK courses, some of which do not strongly favour horses that race close to, or on the pace, I think the results were even more impressive.

In this article I will revisit that idea but before getting to the meat and bones, let me briefly discuss the pace tab and SR ratings, especially for new readers.

The pace tab shows the running styles of the horses for a maximum of their last four races. Each past running style is given a score of between four and one. The breakdown is as follows:

4 – Front runner / early leader

3 – Prominent racer

2 – Raced in midfield / mid division

1 – held up near or at the back early

Past number crunching has noted that early leaders / front runners have a strong advantage over other running styles at some of the shorter distances. This front running bias does not occur at every ‘shorter’ course and distance, but at a significant number.

The one tool that should be able to help us is the Geegeez Gold pace tab. Logic dictates that the higher a horses’ pace score total, the more likely it is to lead and, if it leads, then over time such runners are at an advantage offering us punters good value. Let me share an example of a 5f handicap race run on 25th June of this year focusing first on the pre-race pace ratings:

 

Racing form dashboard showing pace categories Led, Prominent, Mid Division, Held Up with runners and trainer info.

 

The first point to note, before we look at the pace totals for each runner, is the performance of early leaders over this course and distance (C&D).

The most important number for me is the PRB figure of 0.64 for early leaders/front runners (the ‘Led’ group). That suggests front runners have had a significant edge over this C&D in the past. Hence, this is the type of race where, if we can predict the front runner and back it, we should make good money over time. I will come back and discuss the C&D PRBs later in the piece.

In the image above I have ordered the runners by their pace scores and we have two in double figures, namely Iris Dancer and Mr Cool. Pre-race it seemed likely that one of these two would lead. Here is how the race panned out:

 

Final standings table for the Hamilton Park 25-Jun-2026 handicapped race: 1 Iris Dancer, 2 Sherlock (IRE), 3 Penny Mountain (IRE) with trainers and jockeys listed.

 

Iris Dancer did indeed take an early lead and made all the running. Mr Cool was pressing the lead early but eventually finished fifth. The race followed the most likely pattern and the most likely result. Now, of course, there will be plenty of times when a race does not pan out like this, but the odds should generally be in our favour.

Just before I share my new research, I want to briefly talk SR ratings. These are derived from a neural network developed by Peter May. They are much more than a measure of speed; they include a number of form considerations making them a sort of composite of, in Racing Post terms, RPR (Racing Post Rating) and TS (Topspeed) - both of which we also publish in the daily racecards. Crucially, though, the SR figures are not published on every racecard in Christendom, and so fly under the radar considerably more.

Now, going back to that previous race, let me change from ordering the horses by pace rank to SR Ratings:

 

Race card: seven runners with form, trainer, jockey, and recent figures for each horse in the table.

 

Here we see Tarlac top rated on 61, Penny Mountain second on 58 and Iris Dancer third on 56. Hence, based on my previous research article looking at horses being in the top three of both the pace rankings and the SR rankings, the winner Iris Dancer, was the only horse to appear in both top threes.

So, onto today's new research. I thought it would be interesting to come up with a very simple ‘system’ similar to what I did in that original article and test it over a recent four-week period. I chose the first four weeks of May of this year, 2026, to do the testing.

Here are the ‘system’ rules:

  1. UK Handicap races only
  2. Race Distance 5f to 1m1f
  3. The PRB figure for the ‘led’ group on the pace tab for the specific race conditions must be 0.60 or higher
  4. Horse must have one of the top three pace scores for the race
  5. Horse must have one of the top three SR ratings for the race

It should be noted that if there were two joint third-rated pace horses then both would potentially become a qualifier if either or both of their SR rating positions were also in the top three. If there were three or more joint-thirds, then I would count the two with the highest most recent race pace scores. In terms of SR rating joint-thirds, I need to include them all as I have no way of splitting them. Also, if a horse had only three previous pace race scores, I would use their pace average figure to compare with the four race averages that most horses have. In this case, the horses with the three highest averages across either three or four past races would count. I did not consider horses with one or two past scores.

As before I have stuck with handicap races as they give us the most reliable results for this type of idea, but I have expanded the distance consideration from 5f only to races of 5f up to and including 1m 1f. The other main difference is that I am only considering C&Ds where the past data indicates a significant front running bias (PRB of 0.60 or more). For the record, I have excluded any rare three-runner races as all three horses would always qualify in those races under these rules.

OK, let me share my findings. For the rest of this article, I will look at results across the first two weeks, and next week I will share weeks three and four, as well as some thoughts on the four-week trial as a whole.

 

Week 1

There were 29 qualifying horses in week one and the table below gives each individual result. In the table I have added eight columns – date, course and horse being the first three, then the fourth column gives the PRB figure for ‘Led’ runners under the race conditions for that C&D race (i.e. based on the going and number of runners grouping). Column five gives the finishing position of the horse, then their Betfair SP, SR rank of the horse, and its pace rank.

The results for this first week were as follows with winners highlighted in red:

 

Table of horse racing results for early May 2026 showing date, course, horse, PRB 'Led', final position, BSP, SR rank, and pace rank (color-coded rows indicate outcomes).

 

For the record, I have asterisked (*) Nakatomi simply because the sample size for the pace ‘led’ PRB figure came from a very small sample. Most of the PRB ‘Led’ samples came from a very decent number of horses which adds confidence to the overall findings.

Here is the summary for week 1:

 

Table showing betting stats: Bets 29, Wins 6, Win% 20.69, P/L BSP 12, ROI BSP 41.38.

 

A very positive start, although with the caveat that there were only 29 qualifiers. Having said that, there were six horses that finished second and a further four that finished third. Therefore, over half of the qualifiers finished in the first three.

 

Week 2

After a great start could the momentum be maintained in week two? The first race in week two where we had qualifiers was the 3.40 at Chester on 8th May. Note that the ‘Led’ PRB for these races conditions (6f, Good going; runners 11 to 14) stood at 0.67 so it comfortably matched system rule three.

I will share both top-rated runners using the SR ratings and then show top rated pace runners to help clarify the selection process. Ordered by SR ratings first:

 

Chester race card with pace bands, odds, and runner table for 08-May-2026 race.

 

We had three joint third SR ratings, which actually is extremely rare, but it did mean I had five potential horses that could become a qualifier. Onto the pace rankings now:

 

Race results table listing three horses—ROSENPUR, MANILA SCOUSE, MIRACULOUS—with their trainers and jockeys, and final scores.

 

A clean top three here, with Rosenpur and Miraculous appearing in both lists, hence they were both qualifiers. The race result was thus:

 

Race standings table listing position, horse name, trainer, age, weight, jockey, and notes.

 

I haven’t given all the finishing positions as we were only concerned with Rosenpur (who won) and Miraculous who finished fifth. An excellent winning BSP for Rosenpur of 9.54 compared with the ISP of 6.5 (11/2). Also, we should note that Rosenpur led early and made all the running.

Week two had started on the best possible note and below is a table with all the results from that week including those two.

 

Table of horse race results with date, course, horse, PRB Led, final position, BSP, SR rank, and Pace rank.

 

A quieter week with 20 qualifiers and the weekly summary was as follows:

 

Performance summary table: 20 bets, 4 wins (20%), P/L BSP 16.39, ROI BSP 81.95%.

 

Four winners from 20 this time and, as with Rosenpur, the other three were good prices (BSP 7.5, 7.27, 12.74), hence the excellent profit figure and ROI%. There were also five more horses that finished second.

After two weeks therefore the overall figures read:

 

Table of betting stats: 49 bets, 10 wins, win% 20.41, P/L BSP 28.39, ROI BSP 57.94

 

We see a very impressive set of numbers here, but I do appreciate it's from only 49 qualifiers. Having said that, the winners do not seem to have come out of the blue because along with the ten winners, there were 11 second places, too.

This incredibly simple system, for which Geegeez Gold members are able to work out qualifiers on a daily basis, has started very positively. Will weeks three and four continue this trend? All will be revealed next time... until then...

- DR

Geegeez Pace Ratings in 5f Handicaps, Part 2

/in /by

Last week I shared my research into how the four-race pace totals on the Geegeez racecards performed across UK 5f handicaps in 2024 (excluding 2yo nurseries), writes Dave Renham. You can catch up with that article here. The results overall were impressive given we were looking essentially at raw figures with minimal additional ‘tinkering’.

Introduction

This week I am going to focus on the same dataset but combine the pace rating positions / scores with Dr Peter May’s ratings (the SR column in the Gold racecard).

To recap, the pace tab shows the running styles of the horses for a maximum of their last four races. Each past running style is given a score of between four and one. The splits are as follows:

4 – Front runner / early leader

3 – Prominent racer

2 – Raced in midfield / mid division

1 – held up near or at the back early

The SR ratings are derived from a neural network developed by Peter May. They are much more than a measure of speed; they include a number of form considerations making them a sort of composite of, in Racing Post terms, RPR (Racing Post Rating) and TS (Topspeed) - both of which we also publish in the racecards.

SR Ratings by Win Strike Rate and P/L

My starting point for this article is to see how the SR ratings performed in 5f handicaps in 2024 starting with win strike rate. The graph below shows the splits:

 

 

The rating position correlates well with the win strike rate, although the 5th and 6th rated are reversed. Top rated runners have won just over 17% of the time, while those rated 7th or higher have definitely struggled from a win perspective.

I want to now look at the profit/loss figures for the top three rated runners from the SR ratings. This is because later in the article I will combining the top three in the SR ratings with the top three horses in terms of their four-run pace totals (which I order highest to lowest and call the Pace Ratings Rank). Here are the results in terms of the top three ranked in the SR ratings:

 

 

As we can see, the top-rated SR runners would have lost a small amount if backing all qualifiers blind. Second rated have nudged into profit while the third rated have seen losses around the 8p in the £.

Combining SR Top Rated with Pace Rank Top Rated

Now we know the raw performance of the SR ratings I will begin to combine them with what I call the Pace Ratings Rank. Let's first look at what would have happened if only backing runners that were top rated by both set of ratings. Here are the numbers:

 

 

This is a positive start to the Pace / SR collab! The strike rate has equated to just under one win in every five with returns of over 16p in the £. There were also 26 qualifiers that finished runner-up which is another strong positive meaning that 50 of 124 finished in the first two.

If we expand this slightly to the top three of the ratings for both, we get the following results:

 

 

We have increased the number of bets by around 6.5 times whilst keeping a similar strike rate, although return on investment is slightly less. On the upside, though, we would have made more money in profit terms (from a bigger outlay of course). There were 126 qualifiers that finished second including some at tasty BSP odds such as 40.21, 47.97 and 46.0. There was also a third that was beaten just over a length in a 28-runner handicap at BSP odds of 123.97. The horse in question, No Half Measures, raced at Ascot (21/6/24) and was arguably very unlucky having been the best finisher in the far side group in a race where nine of the first ten home raced up the centre of the course.

Considering we are just combining two different ratings in this way, to get such positive results for higher rated runners in both sets, with no other considerations, is extremely encouraging. Now, I appreciate it is just one year of handicap results at one distance, but 809 horses is a decent sample.

Performance of the Lowest Rated on Pace and SR

Let's now switch and combine lower rated runners from both the Pace Rankings and SR ratings. I am looking at the results of horses rated 8th or lower in both rating sets. Here are their combined results:

 

 

These are very poor results which breeds more confidence in our earlier positive findings when combining higher rated runners from both rating sets.

Top Three Rated on Pace and SR by Handicap Age Restriction

If we split the 809 horses that were top three rated on both Pace Rank and SR Rating into 3yo only, 3yo+ and 4yo+ races we get the following results:

 

 

All three returned a profit, and all three had relatively similar ROIs. These figures demonstrate that these higher rated runners from both sets of ratings have performed consistently regardless of the ages of the horses taking part.

Top Three Rated on Pace and SR by Selected Courses: Positive

I want next to examine the performance of the top three rated on both metrics at a selection of courses that between 2017 and 2023 had the strongest front running biases over the 5f trip. I sourced these courses in the first article by examining individual track performances of early leaders / front runners during that seven-year prior time frame. I used a combination of win percentages, placed percentages and A/E indices to formulate the list.

To recap the 12 courses were: Ayr, Chelmsford, Chester, Hamilton, Kempton, Leicester, Lingfield, Redcar, Ripon, Thirsk, Windsor and York. In that piece I examined solely the top-rated runners from their previous four-run pace totals rather than the top three.

Here now are the figures for horses that were in the top three of both the Pace Ratings and the SR ratings when running at one of those 12 courses:

 

 

That's another very solid set of results with a strike rate close to 20% and returns of over 21p in the £.

Composite Ranking Performance

My next port of call was to combine the ranking positions of both sets of ratings to create an overall numerical total. Hence if a horse was top-rated in the SR ratings and ranked 5th in the Pace Ratings/totals that would score six (1+5); if a horse was ranked 4th in both it would score eight (4+4) and so on. Now we know already what a total of two has achieved as those were the results shared earlier for the top-rated in both. Below I have combined the numerical totals into bands in a graph that shows the strike rates for each one:

 

 

This graph offers further evidence that combining the higher rated runners in each set produces better strike rates. We have the sliding scale of percentages that we always want to see when looking at any type of rating-based data set. Meanwhile, the 2-4 band (i.e. SR 1st/ Pace 1st, SR 2nd/ Pace 1st, SR 1st/Pace 2nd, and SR 2nd/Pace 2nd) have a very solid strike rate close to 19%.

Using the same calculation method and the same bands I thought it would be worthwhile to look at the Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) figures. This metric considers all finishing positions based on the number of runners in each race. It is a useful metric to analyse where possible. Here are the splits:

 

 

The chart presents further strong evidence of the positive correlation we have seen throughout this article in relation to the importance of ranking position within the two sets of ratings. 58% of rivals beaten for the 2-4 band is a materially high PRB figure.

Let me now share the runs, wins, profits / losses for each band:

 

 

It is pleasing to see the 2-4 band producing the best ROI% and also seeing the 5-7 band in profit. The 11-14 group have proved profitable but essentially, they had the biggest-priced winner in the whole year (BSP 127.21) which skews their bottom line considerably. The 20+ band would, not surprisingly, have produced very poor returns from a very low strike rate.

Top Rated on SR and 15 or 16 Pace Total

In the first article I looked at some of the data for the highest four-race pace totals, namely 15 and 16. Hence, horses that had gained these scores had led early in either three or all four of those runs. Based on historical research, I've shown that it is reasonable to think that these horses are the most likely to lead in their next race. So what would have happened if we had backed the top-rated SR runner when they had a pace total of 15 or 16? The results read:

 

 

This gives us a small cohort of runners but even from a small sample the figures look promising. The PRB figure is an excellent 0.62 which adds confidence to this small set.

Top Three Rated on SR and 15 or 16 Pace Total

What happens if we expand this to the top three rated in the SR ratings with runners who had a pace total of 15 or 16? The splits are:

 

 

The number of bets has nearly tripled and although the strike rate and the ROI% have dropped a little, the results are still very positive. The PRB has dropped a little too, but it still stands at a very strong 60% of rivals beaten.

Top Three Rated on SR and Pace Rank, ISP 12/1 or shorter

Finally in this piece I am going to go back to look at the results for horses that were in top three of both the SR ratings and Pace Ratings / totals. To date I have not put in any price restrictions, but as we all know a BSP 100.0 winner can skew the bottom line considerably. One of the main reasons I haven't is because all of the bigger priced winners (BSP 30.0 or more) came from horses that were not in the top three of both. If anything, other rating position bottom lines have been the ones that have been skewed.

However, I felt it only right to share the figures for the top three rated in each when we restrict the price, and to make it clean I am using an Industry SP price cap of 12/1. So, just to clarify, the figures below are those for horses that were in the top three of both ratings and were priced ISP 12/1 or less. The figures are as follows:

 

 

These figures are better than the overall figures for top three in both. A 14p in the £ profit over 720 bets would have been an excellent return. The PRB for these runners is a very strong 0.60. All of this from just two things that can be very easily found on the Geegeez Gold Racecards.

Now that looks very good value to me!

- DR

p.s. if you're unclear how to find these, follow the steps below:

1 Look for 5f UK (turf or AW) handicaps, and ignore 2yo races

 

2 On the PACE tab, select 'last 4 races' and 'Data' view, and sort by Total. Then find the top rated or top three rated in the SR column. In this example, from last night, Jeans Maite was top rated on both last-four Pace Score and SR - and, as you can see from the second image below, won at 7/2 (BSP 4.97).

 

Made all, won!

‘SR’ Ratings on the All-Weather

/in /by

There are numerous reasons why the only racecards I use are the Geegeez Gold ones, writes Dave Renham. There are several useful tabs on the racecard, three of which I always look at first: Pace, Instant Expert and Profiler. For flat and all-weather racing I will also look at the Draw tab.

Each of these tabs offers me useful and diverse information, all at simply the click of a button. In under two minutes I can decide about whether the race in question is one that merits more of my time. If it does, then I will delve into the Full Form tab to build up a bigger overall picture for myself. If I get to the stage where there looks to be a horse or horses that I may be interested in betting on, the next thing I will look at is the SR column in the main Racecard.

The number in that column is a ratings figure derived from Dr Peter May’s research. I have always had huge respect for Peter, and I will always consider his ratings when analysing a race. Having Peter’s ratings is another bonus when it comes to using the Geegeez Gold cards. And for today’s article it is Peter’s SR ratings that I am going to take a deep dive into.

Matt wrote an article in September 2023 looking at the performance of the ratings in National Hunt racing. In that piece he explained that Peter’s ratings are not strictly ‘Speed’ ratings. He wrote,

Peter's numbers are derived from a neural network: he's been doing artificial intelligence (AI) since long before it became fashionable. And they're much more than a measure of speed; they include a number of form considerations making them a sort of composite of, in Racing Post terms, RPR (Racing Post Rating) and TS (Topspeed) - both of which we also publish on geegeez.” Hence Peter’s ratings are unique.

My focus for this article is all-weather racing. I have looked at a five-year time frame from January 1st 2020 to December 31st 2024. When I refer to the ratings from now on, I will call them SR Ratings as that is how they appear on the geegeez racecards.

I have spoken to many people who have compiled ratings in the past, be they speed or ability ratings, and in every case the win rate was the key to judging the effectiveness of their ratings. The top-rated runner should have the highest win percentage, the second highest should win next most often, and so on, gradually reducing for the other runners. Obviously, it is hoped the top-rated runner is the best performer in terms of betting returns, too; however, it is important to point out that regardless of how good a set of ratings is, we cannot generally expect the top-rated runner to secure a blind profit over thousands of races. That's not the case with Racing Post Ratings, Timeform Ratings or any other public rating. Despite that, such figures are an excellent guide to which subset of horses can normally be considered contenders.

Let’s start with looking at the win percentages (strike rates) for different SR-rated runners. This covers all races on the all-weather over the five year period of study. The horizontal axis is labelled from 1 and represents the top-rated runner, 2 the second-top rated, and so on:

 

 

The win strike rate for top-rated runners is close to one win in five which is thoroughly decent, and the top three rated horses win almost half (48%) of races. The percentages correlate positively with the rated positions showing a sliding scale that we would hope for. If we look at the Each Way (win & placed) strike rates, we see a similar pattern:

 

 

The top-rated runner is comfortably clear once more, and the sliding scale is replicated showing positive correlation with the win only figures.

In terms of returns to Industry SP, the top-rated runner has performed the best although overall losses stand at 15 pence in the £. However, to Betfair SP losses stand at under 2p in the £. This is impressive considering there are around 13,000 top-rated runners in this sample.

Let me now split the races into handicaps versus non-handicaps and compare with win strike rates for the top-rated and the second rated runners:

 

 

As we can see, in non-handicaps the top-rated runner is well clear of the second rated, while in handicaps the gap is much smaller. This was to be expected, given the relatively competitive nature of handicaps compared with non-handicaps, but again it is good to see it in black and white - or should I say orange and blue!

I would like to now analyse the BSP returns of the top-rated horse in different race types. These have been split into 2yo non-handicaps, 2yo handicaps, 3yo non-handicaps, 3yo handicaps, all age non-handicaps, and all age handicaps. The graph below shows the Betfair SP return on investment percentages (BSP ROI%) for each race grouping:

 

 

Three of the six groupings (2yo non-handicaps, 2yo handicaps, 3yo handicaps) saw the top-rated secure a blind profit which is impressive stuff. All age non-handicaps showed the worst returns, still only losing 6p in the £.

Using the Query Tool on Geegeez I decided to compare the performance of AW favourites, split into those that were also top-rated on the SR Ratings versus those that were not top-rated. Here are the findings:

 

 

The Win PL (profit/loss) and ROI (return on investment) columns have been calculated to Industry SP, and we have a clear winner. In addition, the strike rate is more than six percentage points higher.

When calculating to BSP there is a similar difference between the two:

 

 

Thus, if we back favourites on the all-weather, having them top-rated on SR Ratings would have improved our bottom line. Yes, SR top-rated runners when favourite still made a loss to BSP, but it was limited to only 2p in the £ over five years. A pretty good starting point for further research.

We see a similar pattern when we look at horses second in the betting comparing their record when SR top-rated or not. Here are those splits:

 

 

Again, these are calculated to Industry SP but a clear difference, equating to around 8p in the £, can be seen. To BSP, SR top-rated horses that started second favourite secured a profit of around 4p in the £.

I would now like to look at top-rated runners in all age handicaps in more detail. The reason is that all age handicaps make up around 70% of UK all-weather races, a striking statistic. Also, from a personal perspective, these are my favourite races to bet in. I am hoping that getting a better feel for the top-rated runner has the potential to inform some of our future betting decisions.

Below is a table showing the most positive results from a BSP returns perspective in all age handicaps:

 

 

As a fan of sprint handicaps this makes very pleasing reading. The minimum distance has been a strong positive for top-rated runners in these all age handicaps. The lower weighted top-rated runners have also performed well. It should be noted that this is based on the card weight of the horse and does not consider jockey claims. A quick return is often seen as a positive and, although they tend to be overbet these days, that has not seemingly been an issue when they have been SR top-rated runners. Horses that have yet to win at the course have also snuck into profit possibly due to course winners being overbet meaning the non-winners have been slightly underbet.

I would like to finish by combining top-rated runners with Run Style/Pace. Of course, the run style figures are only known after the race is in progress but the figures follow a familiar pattern we have seen before:

 

The Win PL and the ROI can be considered to be ‘projected’ returns to Industry SP, because as we know we cannot predict 100% how the run style for each horse within each race will unfold. But if we can find a top-rated runner that is a strong candidate for leading early, then this would potentially be a decent betting opportunity. For the record, front running top-rated runners offer slightly better returns in handicaps compared to non-handicaps.

**

At the beginning of this article, I was praising the virtues of the Geegeez Gold racecards. At the end of that opening paragraph I mentioned that having Peter May’s ratings (SR) was a bonus; I hope after reading this article you will agree with me and feel better equipped to tackle the all-weather, particularly under certain highlighted circumstances, going forward.

- DR