April 30, 2005 at 20:07 #4067
Yep EC,but the signs were there before it went on to win a group level
Deauville 2nd AUG 2001 listed
2nd to Do the Honours,and a listed winner in behind in 5th
Kyllachy had 5 previous starts upto the Trace Clip race,so he was a lightly raced,progressive 4yo when posting Group winning time,and as the Listed second show’s, was better than a handicapper,who needed maybe more timeApril 30, 2005 at 21:20 #94702WallaceParticipant
- Total Posts 862
EC, you have summed why I ditched collateral form and moved on to time/speed analysis for a few years and these are now also ditched.
Early last year I moved to a stats based method combined with a completely different way of placing a value of a past form.
What I enjoy now is a completely different view of races and the average odds of my bets is now around 10/1. Last year was my best ever with a profit of 190 points to level stakes.April 30, 2005 at 22:20 #94706
Quote: from EC on 9:25 pm on April 30, 2005[br]but you are missing the point EW
from a collateral angle..the form isn’t Group 1 is it?
No,you are missing mine,Kyllachy had the making’s of a good horse,and by using FORM handicapping you would have known before his Group race time
Notts 20 AUG 01,
4th to Astonished beaten 1.5 lengths 59.6 2.20 faster than standard,so on two occasions before his Group time Kyllachy had finished very close to Listed class animal’s and at Notts in a good time ,SF113April 30, 2005 at 22:46 #94709stevedvgMember
- Total Posts 1137
Kyllachy went on to win Group 3, Group 2, Group 1 in it’s next 4 outings as any time figure compiler would have known just looking at the Newbury race.
EC are you saying that every horse your rating award a solid group 1 time goes on to win a G1 if it’s given the opportunity to run in one?
Are there no exceptions? Horses that score a big time rating but aren’t competitive in G1’s?
SteveMay 1, 2005 at 00:18 #94711cormack15Keymaster
- Total Posts 8799
If you use the methodology that is used by the majority then you will fail. Incorrect!
Your ‘edge’ doesn’t need to be gained from some left field, unique approach that no one else has invented or contemplated. Simple form analysis, of a collateral nature, can identify horses which are under/over priced on a daily basis. Analysis of time figures can do likewise. Analytical evaluation of a horses performances in relation to it’s breeding can be profitable. Assessement of the particular methodologies employed by certain trainers is another area where people have had much success.
On this very day we had a 2,000 Guineas favourite who, I would suggest, the majority of the populus of this knowledgable forum had clearly identified as being too short, based on a variety of reasons. There was no rocket science involved. And often that is the case with many good bets.
My point is that there are a variety of methods which can be utilised and which can all, potentially, lead to profit, whether they are being used by the masses or not. Collateral form is there for all, including the bookies to see. But, often enough, the pricing up of a race doesn’t reflect such form accurately and I would point to this season’s various races involving Moscow Flyer, Azertyuiop and Well Chief as examples of races where strict analysis of collateral form would have yielded dividends.
The key, and what separates the profitable punter from the also-ran, is not the ability to assess form, or timefigures or trainerform and the like. The key is being able to translate that knowledge into an accurate assessment of the price the horse should be traded at. It is not a question of ‘will it win’ but a question of ‘what is the percentage chance of it winning’. It is not the method of anlysis which is important, it is the ability of the individual to translate the results of that analysis, in either a formal or informal manner, into an accurate assessment of whether the price on offer about a horse is an accurate assessment of it’s winning chance.
Usually, in any race, there will be a wide variety of factors which have a potential bearing on the result. In my view the graeter number of these factors which can be analysed the better, provided your analytical tools are robust and you are able to weight the importance of the various factors reasonably accurately (and the weighting varies from race to race!).
All profitable punters will be backing horses at longer odds than their true winning chance or will be laying horses at shorter than their true winning price. Whatever analytical method, or combination of methods, you use, unless you are arriving at an accurate assessment of a horses winning chance then you are on a hiding to nothing in the long term.May 1, 2005 at 02:11 #94712ACR1Member
- Total Posts 64
EC – I think you might be just bending the facts a little to suit your argument. It’s fine pointing out with three years hindsight that the second and third horses never won again.
But what price would you have given at the time that Trace Clip wouldn’t be able to win off a mark of 90 considering he had just been beaten 1.75L’s by a horse who had just run a "solid Group 1 time" getting 13lbs?
Looking back at Kyllachy’s record, his progress from that April 19th h’cap to a Group 1 win would’ve been little suprise to a collateral handicapper either. It was a desperate year for sprinters – Rudi’s Pet beaten just three lengths in a Group 1 and the 107 rated Continent winning the July Cup!
According to the Racing Post ratings Kyllachy was about 1 length better in the Nunthorpe in August than he was in the handicap in April. He was also the highest official rated horse in the race when he won the Nunthorpe. So basically, collateral ratings told you exactly the same thing as speed ratings.
This isn’t a "good example of how the clock is more helpful than A v B form reading" but if you do have one I’d love to see it.May 1, 2005 at 06:17 #94714
Quote: from ACR1 on 3:11 am on May 1, 2005[br]EC – I think you might be just bending the facts a little to suit your argument. <br>
He could be, ACR1
Notts 20/8/01 result and subsequent race position/class<br>Kyllachy beaten 1.5L
Astonished 13/9/01 1st Listed SF 111<br>Eastern Purple 24/8/01 3rd Listed SF 102<br>Indian Spark 8/9/01 2nd G3 SF 113<br>KYLLACHY 30/9/01 4th 0-105 SF 104<br>Helens Lad 5/9/01 2nd 0-105 SF 108
<br>KYLLACHY finshed 4th to Jessicas Dream on the 30/9/01,who went on to win a Group 3 at San Siro
<br>The form of a race,the subsequent form of horses from that race give it credit,giving the race strength in depth,as Kyllachy’s form was Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â strong
<br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Kyllachy’s 2nd race of 2002 season(after Group time race), Jessica’s Dream was beaten by Kallachy 1/2L in the Palace House,further strengthening their previous form
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:28 am on May 1, 2005)May 1, 2005 at 06:48 #94715johnt4124Member
- Total Posts 36
I’m a little confused here. Kyllachy did a Gr1 grade time in winning, but a collateral form analysis based upon the 2nd and 3rd would have disguised the performance?
Did the 2nd and 3rd not return fast times too then? Would these times not have led the time analyst astray as to their abilities?May 1, 2005 at 08:12 #94716
It wasnt a group 1 time in the first place imo. I cant recall the race from memory, but reading the race comments it seems pretty obvious to me that it simply quickened away from some handicapers inside the last, and won "readily". Which would suggest to me that it had plenty left in the tank, so it couldnt have produced a GP1 time.
There was slowly run races at that meeting, which has obviously led to the SF compilers getting carried away with the GA in order to make the slow races fit in nicely. I noticed that split second (or whatever they’re called now) got a bit carried away again the other day. Nice;)May 1, 2005 at 08:16 #94717
The best example I can think of regarding SF’s against collateral form is the maiden that Ramruma won. Went off my scale. The clock watchers new the score, when everyone else was saying "what did she beat"?May 1, 2005 at 13:04 #94718
I’d put the Kyllachy race at around listed and work my SF’s around that. I would recognise Kyllachy as being a good horse, as it won readily in a listed time. Thats what I think happened anyway. Looking at how the other races have turned out , I’d say I’m not too far off the mark. Each to their own, but I cant have a horse being shaken up inside the last to win readily and yet still record a GP1 time.May 1, 2005 at 13:48 #94719
I have GP1 as my highest level EC, and the difference between average and exceptional (or what I call world class) is all of 2 lengths on my scale. I think the 2yo race isnt that useful to be honest, as it was only April, the fav weakend after leading, so maybe the youngsters went too fast early. Dont know, the race has been and gone now, and there isnt weather reports etc, was it a sunny day / windy day?<br> I know the Kyllachy race was only an hour later, but the ground may have got a little faster, maybe a strong tail wind happend. I really dont know, but theres no way I’d award it a GP1 time and would be using that HCP as my main guide to the GA, even if I was somewhat reluctant to downgrade everything else to avoid getting carried away, I’d find an excuse for them somehow:biggrin:May 1, 2005 at 13:50 #94720ACR1Member
- Total Posts 64
I’d agree with EC regarding his basic premise that horses who earn a good figure while winning deserve extra credit to those who earn their figures when running further down the field.
These are the strike rates for horses who have earned the best last time out speed figure in an all-aged h’cap on the AW and who earned that figure in a h’cap.
<br>Prev Pos Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Wins Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Runs Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Win % Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 1 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 213 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 827 25.8%<br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 2 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 129 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 600 21.5%<br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 3-6 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 139 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 783 17.8%<br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 7+ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 10 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 109 9.2%
It clearly shows that the further down the field a horse finished the less chance it has of winning next time. If speed figures were supposed to do what they say these strike rates should be practically identical.
While the differences are interesting from a purely ratings perspective from a punting perspective they are even more so.
The groups of horses who finished 1st or 2nd last time out would earn just a 1% profit backing them to level stakes suggesting that the horses chances are fairly obvious to most even without the use of speed figs.
But the group who finished 3rd to 6th last time earn 11% on turnover. This suggests that one of the better applications for speed figures is identifying horses who have run well and whose chances are not so obvious to the general punter.<br>
(Edited by ACR1 at 2:52 pm on May 1, 2005)May 1, 2005 at 14:11 #94721
ACR1, is that not just showing that the placed horses RO and often had more left, 3-6 less often, but including unlucky horses (ties in nice with the punting perspective you put up), and 7+ have given their all and exposed themselves.May 1, 2005 at 18:59 #94722PrufrockParticipant
- Total Posts 2081
Too much to catch up with in one go here, but the remarks of cormack caught my eye:
The key, and what separates the profitable punter from the also-ran, is not the ability to assess form, or timefigures or trainerform and the like. The key is being able to translate that knowledge into an accurate assessment of the price the horse should be traded at. It is not a question of ‘will it win’ but a question of ‘what is the percentage chance of it winning’.
Which is exactly what I wanted to point out in an earlier "discussion" on this board but felt better of it given that WW3 was breaking out at the time.
The essential "truth" of handicapping (or time figures, or sectional times, or whatever) applies only if it is part of an overall process that identifies the % chances of horses more accurately than others do. There is no respect in which handicapping (or whatever) should be seen as an end in itself, resulting in a "selection".
The "truth" of value betting is widely accepted. The fact that most of us are searching for that truth does not by definition make it redundant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.