Composite Ratings

[Artemis]

Tuesday 2 September

20 races 28 selections 8 NRs 2 winners
3/1, 4/5.

Betfair SP -14.28
SP -14.20
Tote -13.60

SP favs
20 races 8 winners +3.26

FINAL TOTALS

710 races 809 selections 187 winners(23%)

Betfair SP -1.39 (0%)
SP -62.80 (-8%)
Tote -58.40 (-7%)

SP favs

711 races 226 winners (32%) -85.68 (-12%)[/color:e5k5bnc1]

It will take me a few days to consider the results of the ‘experiment’ and what implications they have for my future betting strategy. I am satisfied that this sample of results, covering all types of racing over various distances, in different grades, and on different surfaces and going, is statistically significant and representative of racing throughout the year.

[Artemis]

CONCLUSIONS

1. Anyone placing a bet on Betfair SP can expect to be about 8% better off over time than someone backing the same horses at the traditional SP.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the Betfair SP is the only sensible option at the moment for anyone who wishes to place single bets and who has access to the exchange. I don’t know how liquid this part of the exchange is, so it’s hard to say whether or not you would be able to use it to manage your own multiple betting strategies. For instance, If you put about £5,000(running up money) into the exchange for a horse at 26.0, what effect would this have on the return?

Also, there is no transparent mechanism for returning Betfair SPs. Commission rates can change and the company might squeeze returns to boost their profits once they have achieved a significant share of the SP market.

Notwithstanding these questions, betting at SP in the traditional way is more or less acknowledging that you are playing for fun or interest only, which is fair enough. Betting offices have overheads which make them less competitive compared with internet and phone betting and those who enjoy their facilities have to pay the premium for the service.

2. The composite ratings have performed better than SP favs, which is comforting, although it has to be said that since the start of this year(2008), SP favs have won 35% of races and lost 7% of stakes. The last 27 days have been below this level (32%, -12%), showing that results in general during this period have been in favour of layers and against the punter. There would be no point in persevering with any ratings method which performed no better than SP favs, which require no thought or analysis.

In the short run, I would expect these ratings to perform below SP favs from time to time for periods of several days, but I’m confident that the ratings provide better value selections in the long run and will beat the return from SP favs.

3. Grade or Class of race.

I divided the races into two groups:

Those rated 95+/135+(jumps)

Those rated below 95/135(jumps)

The higher group provided 85 winners from 327 selections(26%) and produced a loss of £38.14 to £1 stake.(-12%)
The lower group provided 102 winners from 482 selections(21%) and produced a profit of £36.75 to £1 stake. (+8%).

This shows that it may be better to avoid the higher rated races, which is the opposite of my usual strategy of only betting on higher class races.
In future, I would not dismiss a race for betting purposes because it is low grade, although like most people I’m drawn towards the better class racing because it is more interesting.

These are my initial thoughts on this ‘experiment’ with the composite ratings. I’m happy to use these ratings to prepare a short-list of horses for any race of those horses rated within 5lbs of the top rating. The short list is likely to be quite long for many competitive handicaps.

Making a selection from the short list almost takes me back in a full circle to where I started out with ratings a long time ago. The difference this time is that I will resist the urge to start adding on extra points for various other positive attributes. I’ll just look through these attributes (and, of course, the available odds!) and trust my judgement.

The composite ratings are reliable enough to provide a steady stream of winners without my help, forming a good basis for my betting. The rest is down to my own skills and a slice of good fortune from time to time.

[dave jay]

I’ve been thinking about this and what you have done there. What I find works better is to take the first and second top rated in each race and compare that with the first and second favourite. I don’t know if you have kept all of your records but that gives a fuller picture of how your ratings actually performed.

[Artemis]

Dave,
I didn’t keep such detailed records because I was looking for a very quick method of making a selection for any race from limited information.

During the winter months, I don’t take very much interest in the racing as a rule, but still fancy the occasional bet. This method enables a short list to be produced quickly and this can be used for more in-depth study.

I know for sure that favs and second favs produce a lot of winners, but I think they are usually overbet, as my figures show for favs. This method often points to the fav or a horse in the top three or four in the betting, but it also selects many horses at much bigger odds. These ‘bigger odds’ selections win often enough to make the method break even at Betfair SP.

If you want to bet in multiples it’s for amusement only. You cannot win at traditional SP odds in the long run, as you probably know.

Also, I was trying to make the point that time-consuming study of form is uneconomic for most people and causes a search for short cuts and quick methods. Of course, there are no short cuts or magic formulae that will produce regular profits – the professional has to study long and hard and also bet big to get ahead of the game. If stakes are modest, spending hours studying is wasteful of our most precious resource- time. Unless, of course, the studying is itself an absorbing hobby that passes the time pleasurably.

[carlisle]

Hi Artemis

i agree that the search for quick shortcut methods is "fools gold". I have finally settled on the use of Racing Post Ratings & Topseed figures.

But they must be relevant to the prevailing race conditions in terms of Going, Distance & Course. The problems with these parameter are, that in their raw state they do not embrace the true nature of racing.

By this i mean, for example, 5 furlongs at Epsom is very different to 5 furlongs at Ponefract. I find the "Solidus" method a neat solution to this difficulty.

If the irrelevant RPR & TS ratings are elminated the picture will become a lot clearer. Then further analysis can be added to this initial race assessment.

byefrom
carlisle

[Artemis]

carlisle,

I think you are definitely on the right track. I’m using the composite rating as a means to produce a short list of horses with the proven ability to compete at this level. Considerations of going(vital), course, distance and other factors are then weighed against available odds to decide on which horse(if any) to back.

Among the things I look at are:

Spotlight’s comments
RP analysis of last race
Horse’s career record regarding going, distance and track preferences
Jockey’s knowledge of the horse
Timeform Perspective on last race – available free on Betfair

If most of these are positive and the price isn’t too skinny for the race in question, I will have a bet.

Many of the eventual winners are, as you might expect, not even on the short list because they do not have the necessary ratings to qualify. I use a cut-off point of within 5lbs of the top-rated.

In yesterday’s Portland H’cap at Doncaster, I had a short-list of no less than 16 out of 21 runners.

I reduced this to 7 based mainly on Spotlight’s comments.

They were: Oldjoesaid, River Falcon, Northern Fling, Hogmanheigh, Fullandby, Hoh Hoh Hoh, and Tamagin.

Eventually, after further study and consideration of the odds, I backed )Oldjoesaid at 16/1.(finished 4th at 10/1)

The winner, 2nd and 4th were on the reduced short list of 7.

In the Next race, the Group 1 sprint, the initial short list was 7 out of 15, which I narrowed down to only one on Spotlight’s comments, the eventual winner African Rose. I didn’t have a bet because the price looked too short for such a race and opposition.

My St Leger was easy, a short list of two, both with favourable comments and credentials, Frozen Fire and Look Here.
The market had already taken account of this and neither was an attractive wager.

I ended up having three further bets using the same strategy

3.45 Laa Rayb unplaced, the winner was not on the short-list.

4.15 Moonquake,unplaced, the winner not on the short-list

5.25 Mia’s Boy, unplaced but rather unlucky in running, the winner not on the short-list.

So, a losing day, but a one where bets were methodically considered and a feeling I gave it my best shot and wasn’t in any way guessing.

[Author]

Posts