Betlarge pro-gambler report – July

[betlarge]

July was more like the kind of month I’d been hoping for with 317 bets (averaging over ten per day and a hundred-or-so more than in June) yielding a profit of just over 17pts. This takes my ongoing profit to 25pts from 616 bets in total. (Nb. by ‘bets’ I really mean races as I very often split stakes, have savers etc. However the amount staked per race is always the same.)

We’ve all seen the resultant smaller fields due to the hot weather and subsequent fast ground and this has always been something of an anathema to me. I’d always been of the belief that with an 8-12 runner field say, it wasn’t much harder to find the winners and one would be rewarded with better value prices. The theory behind this was that half the field could be fairly quickly eliminated and one was basically left with a 5 or 6-runner race anyway, only with better odds.

I now realise that this is probably bunkum as my experience tells me that the remaining half of runners are cunningly placed to get in the way of the horse(s) I’ve backed! The concept may have more ‘legs’ over jumps where most 16-runner novice hurdles essentially boil down to 2-3 live competitors. Furthermore, I’m beginning to think I feel ‘safer’ eliminating half of a 14-runner handicap hurdle field than I do with a similarly-sized sprint handicap.

There’s been a lot of talk about the quality of the day-to-day racing during the summer, now so many courses have moved their ‘marquee’ fixtures to Saturday. I’ve always been a fan of low-grade racing as I find it easier to narrow down a field as so many horses are limited in terms of ability and/or potential improvement. I’ve never seen any evidence to persuade me that fiercely-competitive top-quality meetings are better for punters.

To this end, I’ve analysed the fate of all favourites in three different groups of grades (grades 1 & 2, 3 & 4 and 5 & 6) and split between handicap and non-handicap races. The results are as follows, showing percentage strike-rate and percentage net loss:

All Favourites 2007-2011

Handicaps
Grade 1 & 2: 21.6% -13.5%
Grade 3 & 4: 27.1% -8.1%
Grade 5 & 6: 26.4% -7.3%

Non-Handicaps
Grade 1 & 2: 31.5% -12.0%
Grade 3 & 4: 36.7% -7.5%
Grade 5 & 6: 40.0% -3.1%

The first thing that strikes me is how dreadful the figures are for the highest quality races although there are a couple of caveats here. Firstly, that of smaller sample sizes (eg grade 1 & 2 stakes races numbered 1870 whilst there were 8611 similar grade 5 & 6 races) and also the case that grade 1 & 2 handicaps generally have more runners than their day-to-day counterparts.. Even allowing for this though, the statistical difference is credible and the clear message from these figures is that the lower down the quality scale one goes, the more likely the favourite is to win.

But does that mean that lower-grade races are therefore ‘run to form’ more often than those of a higher grade? Possibly not, as the statistical elephant in the room that says lower-grade races by definition are more open to field money which can move the ‘right’ horse into favouritism.

Interesting nevertheless.

Mike

[robnorth]

I now realise that this is probably bunkum as my experience tells me that the remaining half of runners are cunningly placed to get in the way of the horse(s) I’ve backed!

Mike

Experience has taught me you sometimes have to grit your teeth on that one. On one occasion I backed two in a chase at Fontwell. The first one unseated at the second fence, then continued to cause the second one to run out at the fourth fence! That’s laugh or cry time, and it’s much healthier to laugh!

Seriously though, that was a very interesting post and nice to here that your hard work is starting to pay dividends.The analysis of favourites records does give food for thought.

Best of luck for the remainder of the year.

Rob

[betlarge]

Cheers Rob, thank-you.

Whilst I have some doubts that those favourite stats ‘prove’ that lower-grade races run to form better than higher-grade (the idea that the fate of favourites alone proves anything is flawed), I’ve always held the belief that there may be a touch of old wives’ tale that it’s better to punt on higher class racing.

As a concept it sounds right doesn’t it? Higher class = more consistency = easier to find the winner. The other side of that equation for me though is that I find it more difficult to dismiss runners in higher grade races. I quite often find that I’m thinking ‘anything can win this’.

I also believe that when a 20-1 poke wins a low-grade race, the result can look absolutely unfathomable, whereas a high-class winner at the same price (e.g. Winsili in the Nassau yesterday) will often have perfectly serviceable form. This creates the impression that the higher grade runners are ‘easier’ to find which may be true in one sense, but overlooks the fact that many other horses in such races will also have very good form.

Furthermore, because big-priced low-grade winners can often look impossible to dig out, it creates a view in the punter’s mind that all such races are basically a minefield. The reality is that 20-1 winners in all grades are usually enough to sink most of our bets and statistically win pretty much exactly in their turn, whatever the level.

Mike

[Steeplechasing]

Mike,

Good to hear it is going well.

One of the reasons I stopped betting regularly on the flat many years ago was the trouble horses met in running. Many punters don’t bet on NH racing because of the fall/BD/mistakes factor, and yet, I’d bet with a high degree of confidence that ‘bad luck’ is at play in flat races much more than in NH (although there is no way to measure it).

Reading Richard Hughes’s column has reinforced my belief that not only do horses meet ‘visible’ trouble in running, but that pace/track/draw/inexperience can seriously hinder a horse. Hughes writes fairly regularly along the lines of ‘he couldn’t quite travel the way I wanted in the early stages’ or ‘she found herself crowded when she prefers a bit of room’ etc., etc. Now some would say he is just finding excuses but I think a large part of his success is due to the amount of thought he puts into positioning throughout a race. Pether’s Moon is a good example of what I’m talking about. Hughes was confident it would win two outings back, but ‘something happened’ along the lines of what I mention above. This after the horse had been unlucky at Ascot – but Hughes was proved right about its ability last week at Goodwood.

Anyway, that’s kind of a long way of saying that there are plenty invisible factors at play too, on the flat.

Oddly enough I’ve been making some money betting only on CH4 races through the WM HIll app (cash back as free bet if 2nd), sticking to races with a hot favourite or a race which appears to be a two-horse contest (Toronado/Dawn Approach). But even with bets limited to that category, I’ve been stiffed a couple of times by ‘bad luck’. Having said that, there’s no doubt at all that I’ll have benefited from someone else’s bad luck, but it shows how much of the damn stuff is flying around waiting to catch all of us.

So, there’s the trouble in running aspect and, arguably the most important factor of all – ‘they are not machines’. These ones that pop up at 20s, in whatever grade, have just found a day when they were feeling A1 (probably a rare day) allied, perhaps, to some of their rivals not quite feeling spot-on. I suppose it helps make it the fascinating sport it is and it certainly adds considerable lustre to your achievements so far. Long may it continue.

Good luck
Joe

[Gingertipster]

July was more like the kind of month I’d been hoping for with 317 bets (averaging over ten per day and a hundred-or-so more than in June) yielding a profit of just over 17pts. This takes my ongoing profit to 25pts from 616 bets in total. (Nb. by ‘bets’ I really mean races as I very often split stakes, have savers etc. However the amount staked per race is always the same.)

We’ve all seen the resultant smaller fields due to the hot weather and subsequent fast ground and this has always been something of an anathema to me. I’d always been of the belief that with an 8-12 runner field say, it wasn’t much harder to find the winners and one would be rewarded with better value prices. The theory behind this was that half the field could be fairly quickly eliminated and one was basically left with a 5 or 6-runner race anyway, only with better odds.

I now realise that this is probably bunkum as my experience tells me that the remaining half of runners are cunningly placed to get in the way of the horse(s) I’ve backed! The concept may have more ‘legs’ over jumps where most 16-runner novice hurdles essentially boil down to 2-3 live competitors. Furthermore, I’m beginning to think I feel ‘safer’ eliminating half of a 14-runner handicap hurdle field than I do with a similarly-sized sprint handicap.

There’s been a lot of talk about the quality of the day-to-day racing during the summer, now so many courses have moved their ‘marquee’ fixtures to Saturday. I’ve always been a fan of low-grade racing as I find it easier to narrow down a field as so many horses are limited in terms of ability and/or potential improvement. I’ve never seen any evidence to persuade me that fiercely-competitive top-quality meetings are better for punters.

To this end, I’ve analysed the fate of all favourites in three different groups of grades (grades 1 & 2, 3 & 4 and 5 & 6) and split between handicap and non-handicap races. The results are as follows, showing percentage strike-rate and percentage net loss:

All Favourites 2007-2011

Handicaps
Grade 1 & 2: 21.6% -13.5%
Grade 3 & 4: 27.1% -8.1%
Grade 5 & 6: 26.4% -7.3%

Non-Handicaps
Grade 1 & 2: 31.5% -12.0%
Grade 3 & 4: 36.7% -7.5%
Grade 5 & 6: 40.0% -3.1%

The first thing that strikes me is how dreadful the figures are for the highest quality races although there are a couple of caveats here. Firstly, that of smaller sample sizes (eg grade 1 & 2 stakes races numbered 1870 whilst there were 8611 similar grade 5 & 6 races) and also the case that grade 1 & 2 handicaps generally have more runners than their day-to-day counterparts.. Even allowing for this though, the statistical difference is credible and the clear message from these figures is that the lower down the quality scale one goes, the more likely the favourite is to win.

But does that mean that lower-grade races are therefore ‘run to form’ more often than those of a higher grade? Possibly not, as the statistical elephant in the room that says lower-grade races by definition are more open to field money which can move the ‘right’ horse into favouritism.

Interesting nevertheless.

Mike

Delighted you’re doing well Mike. After a shakey start this flat season – Goodwood has put me back on track.

Your stats about favourites are very interesting. I am one that has always believed better grades are easier to work out. But that means it is easier (for me) to work out the whole race, the value favourite, mid-priced and big-priced value horse too. eg Winsili. With the upper echelon the favourite/s often get hyped.

Do feel one aspect is also badly lacking in such stats, and that is expectation/price. As you say Mike, better grades are more competitive. More runners and more open, meaning the average fav in a Grade 2 handicap will be priced a lot bigger than a Grade 6 average fav.

Non-handicaps in lower grades are notoriously uncompetitive and bear no relation to Group races.

Not only are lower grades open to money bringing the right horse in to fav, but also tell the "wrong" horses in the shape of drifters.

I do believe money talks louder in lower grades, but knowing that – is no help at all. Backing the favs late on is not an option, it still makes a loss. As always, you still need to be on before they shorten, not after… And looking at poorer grade handicaps, (personally) it often looks impossible to evaluate form to price. Probably another reason why money becomes so important.

Do 6/4 favs in lower grades win more often (in % terms) than 6/4 favs in higher grades? May be a better question (if there are enough examples to make it worthwhile). If roughly the same – then lower grades can not be "easier", but your stats do seem to suggest it is no more difficult.

However, obviously working out lower grades will be "easier" for some punters than others… and likewise for higher grades. Each to his own and all that… Admire you for being able to evaluate poor quality racing Mike, am afraid I just can’t do it, so will keep to the better grades.

Value Is Everything

[betlarge]

Do 6/4 favs in lower grades win more often (in % terms) than 6/4 favs in higher grades? May be a better question (if there are enough examples to make it worthwhile). If roughly the same – then lower grades can not be "easier", but your stats do seem to suggest it is no more difficult.

I checked to see how exact 6/4 shots performed over the last 10 years and here are the figures:

Grade 1 & 2: 84/234 (35.9%) -10.3%
Grade 3 & 4: 246/714 (34.4%) -13.9%
Grade 5 & 6: 450/1189 (37.8%) -5.4%

These too looked quite skewed towards lower grade races, albeit with unreliably small sample sizes (in my opinion) at the top end.

I decided to next check on all horses between Evens and 2/1 inclusive (not necessarily favourites). The obvious caveat this time is that I wasn’t comparing exactly like-for-like as there would not necessarily be the same percentage of

exact

6-4, 7-4, 15-8 shots etc etc in all three groups. However this time the control size was big enough to give the stats plenty of credibility:

Grade 1 & 2: 747/2158 (34.6%) -10.7%
Grade 3 & 4: 2368/6569 (36.0%) -7.0%
Grade 5 & 6: 4399/12030 (36.6%) -5.5%

If one is prepared to take the stats at more or less face value, the implication is that if you’re going to bet at the sharp end of the market, you would be better off doing it in lower-grade races. I see absolutely nothing in those figures to support the widely-held opinion that higher-class racing is somehow ‘better’ for the punter overall, although I understand what you say about how it suits your particular analysis.

Mike

[Drone]

I certainly don’t hold with the received wisdom that one should only bet in ‘better class’ races: the key to succesful betting is in my opinion,

specialisation

and it matters not a jot in which type of race you specialise; just those that through trial and error you’ve discovered you have an edge in and perhaps enjoy and interest you most too. Edge derived from or helped by enjoyment and interest…something in that?

For the record I have for about eight years now bet exclusively in steeplechases, the large majority being handicap chases and the large majority of those being in sub 0-125s at the weekday gaffs with single-figure fields. ‘Uncompetitive’ (whatever that means) 5,6,7,8 runner handicap chases in which I know the horses and their connections like the proverbial back-of-my-hand…yes please

Hunter Chase, Flat Pattern, Novice Hurdle, Sprint Handicap etc etc… any, but never all

[Gingertipster]

Do 6/4 favs in lower grades win more often (in % terms) than 6/4 favs in higher grades? May be a better question (if there are enough examples to make it worthwhile). If roughly the same – then lower grades can not be "easier", but your stats do seem to suggest it is no more difficult.

I checked to see how exact 6/4 shots performed over the last 10 years and here are the figures:

Grade 1 & 2: 84/234 (35.9%) -10.3%
Grade 3 & 4: 246/714 (34.4%) -13.9%
Grade 5 & 6: 450/1189 (37.8%) -5.4%

These too looked quite skewed towards lower grade races, albeit with unreliably small sample sizes (in my opinion) at the top end.

I decided to next check on all horses between Evens and 2/1 inclusive (not necessarily favourites). The obvious caveat this time is that I wasn’t comparing exactly like-for-like as there would not necessarily be the same percentage of

exact

6-4, 7-4, 15-8 shots etc etc in all three groups. However this time the control size was big enough to give the stats plenty of credibility:

Grade 1 & 2: 747/2158 (34.6%) -10.7%
Grade 3 & 4: 2368/6569 (36.0%) -7.0%
Grade 5 & 6: 4399/12030 (36.6%) -5.5%

If one is prepared to take the stats at more or less face value, the implication is that if you’re going to bet at the sharp end of the market, you would be better off doing it in lower-grade races. I see absolutely nothing in those figures to support the widely-held opinion that higher-class racing is somehow ‘better’ for the punter overall, although I understand what you say about how it suits your particular analysis.

Mike

Many thanks Mike, that’s food for thought.
May be I should give the poorer grades another chance.

Not so much money is wagered on a gaff race than Grade 1. Therefore, the

percentage

of over all race stake money taken for a "steamer" is far greater. So a horse will shorten far more for the same amount of money wagered on it.

In gaff races the prize money is very low and the only way trainers/owners are able to "make money" is a betting coup. With perhaps those being backed "more likely" and those not being backed (drifters) "less likely to show their form". Which may in tern mean those at the front of the market having a greater chance.

Obviously there is no point in backing blind and making a -5.5% deficit. The problem (as ever) is knowing which horses are the ones likely to be backed (value).

I was once asked if I’d like to put my name forward (no more than that) for doing "Spotlights" in the Racing Post, which includes making the "betting forecast". Obviously those just starting the job would need to work in poorer grades. Where as my own betting forecasts (for betting purposes) on Grade 1,2,3 and even 4 were pretty good. My trials for Grade 6 proved impossible (way out), so I didn’t take it further. May be I didn’t give it enough of a chance Mike, but as Drone says, specialisation is key.

However, your figures do strongly suggest Grade 5 and 6 aren’t the impossible races I once thought they were.

On the other hand…
If those at the head of the market don’t do as well as you’d expect in Grade 1 and 2; does that mean mid-range/outsiders do better than you’d expect in that grade? More big priced winners = "easier" profits Mike?

Value Is Everything

[tooting]

I agree with Ginger (an unlikely phrase I know).

Do you have stats on the "paper" favourite for the lower grade races? It seems to me (with no quantifiable proof) that the market speaks in lower class races much more than it does in better class races.

Which is to say, in better class races the betting public’s involvement is subject to all sorts of variance – hype, patriotism, greed, romance, the story, the ******* Queen for crissakes – so that there is a tendency for favourites to trade too low. Not forgetting they are running in much more competitive races, price per price.

In lower class races money doesn’t speak it swears. Weak markets, no liquidity, cheats and chancers, non triers, blah blah blah.

Just a thought. Keep trucking!

[betlarge]

On the other hand…
If those at the head of the market don’t do as well as you’d expect in Grade 1 and 2; does that mean mid-range/outsiders do better than you’d expect in that grade? More big priced winners = "easier" profits Mike?

It’s a good point and it looks as though they do:

All runners from 4/1 to 6/1 inclusive:

Grade 1 & 2: 1203/7858 (15.3%) -9.9%
Grade 3 & 4: 3519/23753 (14.8%) -12.6%
Grade 5 & 6: 7077/47404 (14.9%) -12.0%

All runners from 10/1 to 14/1 inclusive:

Grade 1 & 2: 885/12877 (6.9%) -15.8%
Grade 3 & 4: 2232/33624 (6.6%) -19.1%
Grade 5 & 6: 4461/69454 (6.4%) -21.1%

There would be a million different ways to specify this analysis – by individual odds, race type etc – but I think that would just be ‘analysis paralysis’. The broad point here is that shorter-priced horses do better in lower grade races whilst that swings around to bigger-priced runners doing better in higher grades.

The one thing I find remarkable about these statistics is how they show that a 6/4 shot (or 11/8, 13/8 etc etc) in one grade is NOT the same as a 6/4 shot in another. Likewise, with bigger priced horses. I have done analysis on SP’s before and it always shows that year after year every price wins pretty much exactly as it ‘should’ in terms of overall return. This has always demonstrated to me the remarkably accuracy and efficiency of the betting market, even in pre-exchange days.

I would now say that smooth overall figure masks a number of very significant kinks as one slides up and down the quality scale.

Mike

[Cav]

Sorry about formatting
All UK races 2010-Yesterday
SP <2/1
BFSP before commission

Class Runners Winners Win S/R P/L Betfair ROI Betfair
1 822 371 45.13 -10.56 -1.28
2 510 207 40.59 -40.75 -7.99
3 1483 608 41.00 -94.99 -6.41
4 5389 2370 43.98 -85.59 -1.59

6 3591 1607 44.75 48.36 1.35
7 34 16 47.06 0.13 0.39

[Author]

Posts