- This topic has 132 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi
"Bookies weaknesses"
I still feel the the way a market is priced up is flawed.
Wallace my list of important factors* are as follows:
Going                  30pts   18%<br>Distance of the Race   25pts   15%
Ability of the Horse     25pts   15%<br>Course                 23pts   14%<br>Speed Rating          20pts   12%<br>Recent Form           20pts   12%
Trainer                15pts   9%<br>Jockey                 10pts   6%
*It’s a work in progress……….
However I feel comfortable with the top 2.  How can I horse show it’s ability, if it cannot handle the Going and the Distance?<br>Course is a little difficult.  It would come alot higher if most of the races were run at, say, Chester.
Recent form can be overplayed, the market seems to be dominanted by it.
Speed Ratings tend to be underestimated.  "TIMEFORM"
I am happy to have Trainer and Jockey at the bottam. They cannot do anything without the right ammunition.
I think I should give more points to the top 2.<br>Any suggestions are most welcome.
<br>byefrom<br>carlisle
"the secret of success is constancy to purpose"
Similarly to slipperytoad, I tend to keep it simple using virtually identical factors when making a decision on whether to bet or not.
I found this article a while ago which I thought was very useful. Even if the actual horse profiling exercise is never physically put into practice, it still gives some food for thought. Personally when looking at a race, I prefer to look at reasons why a horse WON’T win the race rather than reasons why it will.
http://www.form-pro.com.au/article_horseprofiles.html
In terms of the suitability of the horse in question to a particular course/track, I tend to lean towards Nick Mordin’s course descriptions which are quite good IMO.
Nick’s book "Winning without Thinking" is an excellent read, especially for snippets such as "when the going is heavy, look for a horse who has ran well on heavy while earning the race comment "stayed on"". Nick attempts to make systems out of such statements which is what the book is about but it contains several pointers like this which can be used to your advantage.
In one of Nick’s other books (Betting for a Living) he also states that rather than compile a tissue for a race, he tends to reduce the field to a shortlist of horses which he feels actually have the ability to win the race before deciding on an acceptable price. Then if he feels, for example, that 3 horses can win a race, then he will not accept anything less than 3/1 about any of them. I use this method to a large extent (without success but it’s fun and passes the time) and find this an invaluable exercise and you do tend to get a feel for the market/pricing in this way.
Another writer I found quite good is Fenman who writes/wrote in Racing Ahead magazine. In one article he notes courses which are somewhat unique/difficult and to pay attention to CD winners. In another, he points out the usefulness of the RP race summary when attempting to make sense of a horse’s recent form.
Fairly basic stuff to some on here but all helpful nonetheless.
PM me if anybody wants some of Fenman’s articles or a list of Nick Mordin’s course descriptions (or Flatstats for that matter which are freely available by manipulating their (limited) free database)
(Edited by Nick Mordin’s agent at 2:05 pm on Oct. 17, 2006) :o
Hi slipperytoad
thanks for the reply.  I will look at that other thread.
To get a rating for the “ability of the horseâ€ÂÂ
Hi davidbrady
thanks for your last post.  I haven’t heard of Fenman, I will have to check him out.
It’s all good stuff.
byefrom<br>carlisle
- Total Posts 17716
DB, ST.
I am all for simplifying things, why not take it a little further and apply Ockham’s Razor to the whole business of selection?<br>Does the jockey really make that much difference, is the likely pace so vitally important,( Or can it be predicted with any degree of certainty), does a couple of points on a speed figure, or a couple of extra pounds in the saddle justify the selection or rejection of a potential wager?<br> Surely, unless the bet is an outright gamble, one should be looking for the horse with enough in hand to negate all the lesser considerations?<br>Similarly with value, does it really matter whether a horse is 3/1 or 7/2; anyone who thinks they can regularly predict the market to such fine tolerances is surely kidding themselves?<br>Why not just take account of the things that really (imo, of course) make a difference, such as class, fitness,  and ability under the circumstances? <br>Racing and betting is full of people who believe the only way to achieve an edge is to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, yet the reality is the more they get away from the basics, the less their chance of consistently finding winners.
(Edited by reet hard at 6:17 pm on Oct. 17, 2006)
Quote: from reet hard on 6:14 pm on Oct. 17, 2006[br] Why not just take account of the things that really (imo, of course) make a difference, such as class, fitness,  and ability under the circumstances? <br>Racing and betting is full of people who believe the only way to achieve an edge is to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, yet the reality is the more they get away from the basics, the less their chance of consistently finding winners.<br>
<br>Well said, reet hard… Its the kind of basic stuff that we all need reminding of every now and then… Couldn’t agree more
The ability of the horse is expressed as a rating in the method I use. It is a composite figure derived from form and speed ratings and is expressed as a figure ranging from -5 to about +10, this figure representing the difference between the horse’s ability and the standard of the race. Ability can account for up to 40% of the final rating, so is fairly close to carlisle’s 45% (ability + speed rating)
Jockeyship can be up to 7, so it probably ranks as the second most important factor in my estimation. (up to 25%).
Course form can be up to 4(12%), distance 2(6%), horses career record 2(6%), recent form 2(6%), draw 3(9%).
Nothing for the trainer, as I believe their influence is already largely accounted for in the figure for the horse’s ability. The best trainers usually get the best out of their horses wherever they place them.
Also nothing for the going, although I believe it is without doubt the most important consideration for any horse when looking at its chances on the day. I leave it to the trainer most of the time to decide if conditions are suitable. If it is extreme going (firm or very soft), and the race is unmissable for the horse such as a classic or prestige event, the trainer might let the horse take its chance. In this case, and this case alone, I would ignore such a horse despite its favourable rating.
Absolutely RH, I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I think narrowing the field down to a realistic shortlist is so important. But if you get down to a shortlist of 4 (having taken things such as going, distance, class, & form into consideration) who you believe can realistically win the race, would you back the one wich is priced at 6/4 or the one which is 5/1. At some point, you have to take a view that a price is either too short, too long, or just about fair.
Hi there
I agree that form study can not be super accurate.<br>Making a steady profit, is the only requirement.
There does tend to be high degree of cross over.  The bottam line, for me, is do the 8 ratings look sensible.
I feel that trying to get my 8 factors as accurate as possible is vital.  When they are viewed alongside each other they illuminate the story of the horse’s chance, and the race as a whole.
Making a shortlist is then relatively easy, especially if you place them under a probability umbrella.
Eliminating the neccessity to price up every horse, and thus highlighting any value.
byefrom<br>carlisle
"I am not the finished article, yet"
(Edited by carlisle at 8:30 am on Oct. 18, 2006)
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?!
davidbrady you and I are from the same school of thought. Especially with respect to
"Reducing the field to a shortlist of horses which he feels actually have the ability to win the race before deciding on an acceptable price."
I’m also with RH.. far too often we humans complicate things when we should look to the apply the K.I.S.S principle..
There are many ways to approach this game .. whatever  floats your boat really but I long since realised that for me keeping it simple is my Modus operandi which allows me more time to focus on my arch nemesis .. betting psychology :angry: <br>
Hi
when you have a script, and you truly believe in it, psychological weakenesses become tamed.
byefrom<br>carlisle
"belief is unflinching, confidence is transitory"
<br>
(Edited by carlisle at 11:45 am on Oct. 18, 2006)
slipperytoad,
Elementary……….. most of the time…… but the occasional three- pipe problem is bound to crop up.<br>Not to mention Professor Moriarty.
Hi
my revised percentages are as follows:
Going                36pts   20%<br>Distance of the Race  31pts   17%
Ability of the Horse   25pts   14%<br>Course              23pts   13%<br>Speed Rating         20pts   11%
Recent Form         20pts   11%<br>Trainer              15pts   8%<br>Jockey               10pts   6%
Race conditions              =  50%<br>Race conditions + Ability + Speed =  75%
byefrom<br>carlisle
ps Neural nets?
(Edited by carlisle at 5:05 pm on Oct. 20, 2006)
carlisle,
Sorry to land this upon you, but if you(probably quite rightly) give such high importance to the going in your deliberations, I am bound to ask a few pertinent questions:
How do you determine a horse’s going preference?
How do you turn a horse’s going preference into a figure?
How do you judge the state of the going for the race under consideration?
I’m not asking out of ignorance, but my own answers to these complex questions might be different to yours, or anyone else’s for that matter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.