- This topic has 70 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Very emotive debate on twitter yesterday (continuing on today by the looks of it) with the chief protaganists Simon Rowlands (ex-Rowleyfile of this parish) and Johnny Dineen, the Irish racing pundit and former bookie.
The crux is that Johnny’s approach was called out by Simon (“You’d think you might at least look further into why a 2yo ran several lengths quicker than two half-decent winning 3yo handicappers on the same card before stating that it was “a million” to win its next start. If you didn’t want to be regarded as a complete chancer, anyway.”) This all followed a Paddy Power Ascot preview podcast (available on Youtube) where Johnny dismissed Asadna’s chance in the Coventry.
After various replies and parries of a sort of ‘each to their own’ nature Johnny eventually gave way to his frustration and vented his true opinion on the matter – “And to be crystal clear, i do not think times are important evidence, never have and never will. In fact i think they a crock of shite and thats why i am glibly dismissive of them.”
I wondered which camp the TRF community are in?
For me, sectionals are valuable but are certainly not the be-all and end-all. I recently started doing my own timings and analysis and it has helped my betting considerably. But I think it could be as much the repeated viewings of each race that is better-informing me than the data itself, although both do play a part. They (sectionals and times) can tell you things your eyes wouldn’t pick up. But the same is true about your eyes in terms of picking up factors that wouldn’t be relayed by the times alone.
The time a horse posts can indicate its latent ability but there are many factors that govern whether that latent ability can ever be reproduced or progressed. Visinari is the most recent high profile example of a horse that seemed to suggest from early time performances that it would take high rank only for it never to quite live up to the promise of that initial number (completely lost its way in the Uk and never won again although did win a Listed handicap in Australia after being sent down-under).
What do we think?
Crock of shite or Rowley’s right?
First of all, I’ve no idea why they can’t leave each other to their own differing methods.
Last time I checked, you didn’t get paid out any more for proving someone else wrong in the course of backing a winner.
I was vaguely aware of this spat but, whoever “called out” who first, why, just why?
Simon Rowlands has his methods, honed over many years, and as he operates in the racing media all of that is open and transparent – Simon is what he is.
Johnny Dineen, who I know very little about, seems to like to lump on odds-on favourites.
He won’t need me to tell him the margin for error is slender there, but some do make a success of it.
The mantra “never bet odds-on” doesn’t make a lot of sense as most people would take 10/11 about themselves to cross a road safely and there’s a difference between backing a horse at 1/2 and backing a horse at 1/5.
Such punters tend to bet 1/2 shots they think should be 1/5.
I have studied times for 40 years, I went to school with a guy called Chris Wright who isn’t as high profile as Simon (though I did a feature on Chris in The Independent* once) but was Phil Bull’s time figures understudy at Timeform (Chris was a colleague of Simon’s) after uni and later succeeded Bull in the role.
Since then the increased use of sectional times in the UK has emerged.
The clock can’t lie, but it can mislead and is open to interpretation.
I didn’t actually think Visinari ever did an exceptional time – not the way I calculate figures, anyway.
Pinatubo impressed me a lot more as a 2yo on the clock and more often too, not that it helped him in the 2,000 Guineas the following spring (not the biggest, he was a better 2yo than he ever was at three).
It would be an error IMO to dismiss the value of time study.
But it would be an equal error to dismiss the methods of others simply because they aren’t your methods.
*Man With Time On His Side: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/man-with-time-on-his-side-1329067.html
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"I think if you look at the two men in question it kind of reinforces my own beliefs/attitudes towards times and sectionals. They are a great tool for analysing and reflecting on what has happened in the past. The trouble is they aren’t always indicators of what will happen in the future and therefore aren’t always very helpful when it comes to betting. Another problem is they are mainstream now, freely available via Racing UK/ATR depending on where the race is with the exception of Chelmsford in the UK and that means any sectional performances of note are likely to be factored into the market now. Also I find some of the obvious stuff on sectionals or times is obvious to the naked eye anyway, you can normally see when someone got a soft lead for example.
Rowlands is one of the best in the business if not the best at identifying what has happened and contextualising it but he’s been dropped by At The Races as a tipster because that ability to see what happened doesn’t translate well to his tipping. Dineen has been a bookmaker and now punter so he’s coming at it from a different angle. If he’s saying he can make a living as a punter discarding times etc then that’s great for him, I’m sure others can make it pay using them but probably not solely, Hugh Taylor for example will regularly have success using times and sectionals as a way in but its not his only method.
I lean more to the Dineen side of the discussion. But neither emerge well from their undignified little argument.
Johnny D was on a preview show the other day
His advice was to lump on Chaldean and saver on Paddington or to lump on Paddington and a saver on ChaldeanConfused.com
Blackbeard to conquer the World
There are way too many variables for times to ever credit them a valuable tool in finding winners to me.
Draw. Ground. Current weather. Pace of the race. Where the horse was positioned. Its current handicap mark compared to its previous one.
Time students seem to think that if horse A was aimed at the finishing post on the straight 6 at Doncaster 10 times it would run a perfectly similar time on all 10 occasions.
Sectionals (or fractions as they are known in the US) are useful in a few cases
1) if a horse slows down dramatically in the last part of the race it suggests they might have difficulty going a further distance
2) For closers you can see if there was actually any pace for them to run against in previous races, and take that into account when looking at their form
3) if you are comparing horses that run regularly at the same track in similar types of races – not a common situation in the UK except maybe the AW ovals.I’ve had quite enough of the shits this last couple of years thank you very much and I’m not very fast getting to the dunny!
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysOn the one-to-ten scale of “Too Much Information,” that registers an 11, sir.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Times are just another individual piece of the overall puzzle that can be helpful if placed in the proper context but can be somewhat misleading when you just view them as the gospel regardless of how races unfold.
It is one of the reasons that RUK’s Angus McNae can be a rather irritating tw*t over that fact that he will nearly wet himself with over effusive praise should a horse run either a good sectional or a good time and be rather dismissive for one that doesn’t…he will always like clock work mention sectional times like it is the be all end all to assessing a horse.
I’d agree with LD73 here.
Times were my first big angle into betting as my interest developed – and I still use them to this day – but they’ve grown in popularity, this has affected the market and there isn’t the incredible value there once was from overall (and nowadays sectional) time study.
Plus times are just one factor and they can mislead – times are “fast” relative only to times on the same card the same day and if those races aren’t run at a strong overall pace (and even 5f-6f sprints not always are) the apparent stand-out time (after allowing for OR, weight-for-age etc) can be flattered.
Time figures are still an educated guess, a highly-educated one, but a guess nonetheless.
I’m told Simon Rowlands started the spat and, after a while, Johnny Dineen bit back.
Simon could do himself a favour by cutting out the urge to issue unsolicited lectures to other people – it can come across as pompous, sermonising, patronising and even delusional (“pot, kettle, black” for me, I know!) if other people turn out to know just as much, or even more, simply have a different approach but are actually the better overall punter.
And Johnny should realise that “no reply IS a reply” and if you completely ignore criticism of you, only the most stupid of onlookers will think it’s because you have no defence.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Dineen 1 Rowlands 0
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Visinari is again given by the OP as an example of a horse that did not fulfil his potential. He’s right, at least in that sense, but the fact is he was never really given a top class timefigure.
I was one who others might claim “fell for it”. Something I backed (for the Guineas) @ 50/1 ante-post did not win. Hardly a big surprise! Also had odds against (5/4) for the July Stakes the evening before that race. Didn’t back him @ 50/1 because I thought he was then top class and going to win the Guineas; but because I thought he had a better than 2% chance of doing so. ie I thought he had potential. Could have laid him back for both races at considerably shorter just before the latter race. My thinking was that (fact is) big individuals like him are rarely seen at their best first time out, especially those from the Mark Johnston yard. But this turned out to be an exception. When horses are beaten @ 4/6 into third they are often thought of as running a long way below form or the previous form rating was significantly higher than it should have been. But however much I thought 5/4 represented excellent value (ie imo had quite a bit better than a 44% chance) for the July Stakes… 4/6 was too short (ie nowhere near a 60% chance). So with the media coverage given to the horse the SP did not represent his true chance of winning.
That said, only beaten by a short head and a head. First and second coming from much further back and this after Visinari wandered quite badly under pressure.
… So just how much was the horse below his debut form anyway?
Timeform rated Visinari 106p for debut victory. So the OP is exaggerating somewhat when trying to imply he was ever thought of as putting up a superlative top class timefigure, not even a top class two year old rating. It was just that very few achieve 106 first time out and most – especially those of his stature – do progress further. Progressing just a stone from debut would’ve put him in with a chance of Guineas victory.The horse that won the July Stakes – finishing a short head and head in front of Visinari was Royal Lytham. On his next and only other two year old start he finished just a length behind Siskin in a Group 1. Royal Lytham rated 111p and Siskin – also victorious in the Middle Park – ended the year 114p. So on form (how close he was to Royal Lytham) Timeform’s 106p for Visinari is in all probability not far wrong, they themselves reduced the rating to 104. Timeform certainly weren’t as far out with their first assessment as some people believe.
As I said earlier, Visinari wandered quite badly in the July Stakes and that (as often is the case) may well be an indicator of something going physically amiss. Not surprising he was never the same again afterwards.
Of course most 50/1 shots do not realise their supposed full potential, that’s the nature of judging a horse on just one run. Few will fulfil potential, but (if you’re good at identifying value by time) then at those prices the few that do fulfil will pay for the losses and a whole lot more.
Many horses show their potential first through their time performances.
Rowlands is right. However, I do wish he was quieter. Sectionals – or what I used to call “pace in the race” used to be the thing that above all else gave me an edge. Yes, it has always been talked about but Simon has made it more understandable to a greater number of punters… And together with sectional times being more freely available = sectional value is more difficult to find nowadays and the golden egg is (imo) no longer there.
Haven’t read much about this other chap, but he sounds a bit like Harry Findlay.
Of course any individual price can be value, even long odds-on…
… And those that back at long odds-on can feel they’ve got the game sussed purely because they have many many winners. At long odds-on a punter can expect a run of fourty or fifty winners. But so much can be lost in one go that a big hitter can also lose it all in double quick time.Value Is Everything“Simon could do himself a favour by cutting out the urge to issue unsolicited lectures to other people – it can come across as pompous, sermonising, patronising and even delusional (“pot, kettle, black” for me, I know!) if other people turn out to know just as much, or even more, simply have a different approach but are actually the better overall punter.”
Perceptive stuff, Ian.
Simon flies into an immediate pathological rage if his core beliefs are questioned and cannot find a civil way to simply disagree. We followed each other on twitter for over 10 years, though I didn’t pay that much attention to his posts as I knew his main subjects. And I doubt he paid much attention to mine. But I noticed a couple of years ago that if anyone questioned him on timing or his new baby stride analysis, he’d try to humiliate them almost immediately. He continued doing this and I saw a few of his victims slink away and never come back to twitter.
I questioned his assessment and rating of Desert Crown’s Derby win, and he quickly flew off the handle resorting to his usual bullying and humiliation attempts. But I wouldn’t lie down and he went mental responding with a cursing paragraph of pretty foul abuse then blocked me.
It set me wondering just why he had lost his Timeform job (something I suspect that hurt him badly). He was one of the top guys there. I didn’t know ATR had also dropped him and I wonder if his ‘people skills’ have now become unacceptable even to employers. It’s a shame. He’s a smart guy. Looks like he loses complete control when questioned or critiqued.
Johnny Dineen gave him much more grace and leeway than he deserved in that twitter exchange before Rowlands also took him too far. I know whose company I’d much rather spend time in.
tbh I am not on Twitter and haven’t seen the debate and not seen much of Rowlands recent stuff either.
Maybe he’s not in such a good mood these days because making a good profit from the subject is harder
He’s explained the subject too well and therefore The Sectional / Time edge (although still important) is not what it was.Then again, being right about something is not a popularity contest and it is only natural for many punters to block their ears when being told they’ve not been assessing a race / races correctly.
Most people who know betting extremely well will come over as patronising. It’s just the nature of the beast. To a certain degree being a successful punter will make that punter arrogant and appear patronising to others. ie Making a good profit is proof of generally working races out correctly. Therefore he knows he knows his subject well and knows many punters he talks to do not know it so well as he does. Albeit any individual race can be worked out wrongly.
I remember Simon questioned me about something and I thought he came over as arrogant and patronising, but it was only to be expected. Judging by his work at Timeform and ATR it’s clear Simon knows (or maybe that should now be “knew”) his particular subject extremely well.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.