- This topic has 76 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Following on from the recent controversy between Ferdy Murphy and the RUK pundits, I’ve done a bit of checking….
Jan 01 2008 and onwards
Ferdy Murphy
Less than 8/1…..72 – 339 = 21.24% P/L at BFSP -1.05 points
Greater than 15/2…..14 – 471 = 2.97% P/L at BFSP -242.24 pointsClearly your wasting your time looking for value, if their not backed they won’t be winning.
43 of the 72 winners in the 8/1 and less category were unplaced last time out.
From the 15/2 and above range a staggering 389 of the 471 runners were held up, yielding just 7 winners, a strike rate of 1.8% and a huge loss at BFSP of -301 points to a 1 unit level stake.
Going by that I’d say they have every right to ask questions of the Yorkshire handler.
On hurdles form Nouveau Maire should still have been 7 or 8lbs well in yesterday. Cue 9/2 out to 14 to lay on betfair and travelling well enough, then niggled and pulled up when still only 9 or 10 lengths off the leaders.
If they aren’t backed they won’t win.
Astonishing figures, yet something I could maybe of guessed from punting on a day to day basis (I haven’t got RUK so knew nothing this rumpus).
Will this now result in punters getting even worse value on the Murphy runners that are backed?! I’m too late, as always
Those figures are not astonishing at all.
The odds represent the market view of the chance of the horse winning.
It is simply because the outsiders have less chance that they are outsiders, and surprise surprise, less of them win.
The posters above are trying to make the stats fit their own aregument, and it is total nonsense. All trainers have a higher strike rate with their lower odds winners.
If you are looking for indications of cheating, look for a triner or jockey or owner that consistently gets HIGH PRICED winners.
With all due respect cjboy, your post is way off the mark. Of course trainers show a higher strike rate at lower prices but you wouldn’t expect the dramatic difference in LSP accross the spectrum of prices, or the major difference in riding tactics. I’m sure CR could demonstrate this by comparing the stats with the likes of a Nicholls or a King, for instance.
Those figures are not astonishing at all.
The odds represent the market view of the chance of the horse winning.
It is simply because the outsiders have less chance that they are outsiders, and surprise surprise, less of them win.
I’m not wholly convinced the figures supplied are as damning or as black-and-white as CR believes due to the relatively small sample size, but nevertheless the losses are to BFSP not SP, hence the fav/longshot bias should be negiligible and the odds should approximate to ‘true’ chance across the whole range i.e percentage loss should be more or less constant whatever the price range sampled, all things being equal on a level playing field
As I understand it anyway
or the major difference in riding tactics.
Since most FM runners are ridden by G Lee, and he favours a hold up style I don’t understand this comment.
On hurdles form Nouveau Maire should still have been 7 or 8lbs well in yesterday. Cue 9/2 out to 14 to lay on betfair and travelling well enough, then niggled and pulled up when still only 9 or 10 lengths off the leaders.
If they aren’t backed they won’t win.
Nouveau Maire was reported as having a breathing problem. That being said I’m not sure it would have been good enough in the class anyway and in my estimation 9/2 was way too short on previous evidence.
Rob
Cav – how would those stats compare with other any other trainers with a similar number of runners?
Personally, and without any figures at my disposal to prove anything, I prefer to back Nicholls and King trained horses when they drift; it makes and has made no difference to their chances whatsoever from my punting experiences. I’m reasonably confident that any figures produced regarding the above mentioned trainers will be nowhere near as revealing as that of FM runners. No suggestion of any skullduggery coming from this corner at all, by the way. I think it’s a very good pointer and nothing else, so cheers to the OP for highlighting it!
nevertheless the losses are to BFSP not SP, hence the fav/longshot bias should be negiligible and the odds should approximate to ‘true’ chance across the whole range i.e percentage loss should be more or less constant whatever the price range sampled, all things being equal on a level playing field
Am I missing the point here?
The point is being made by looking at a Level Stakes Profit, i.e. putting a notional £1 bet on every runner. That statistic gives enormous emphasis to high priced winners, and as I said, the low priced ones are the ones that are expected to do well. Is the complaint that he doesn’t have many 100/1 winners?
In the case of some other trainers the media wax lyrical because they "tell it like it is" and say when their horse has a good chance, or conversely a poor chance. Paul Nichols did that the other day on the Morning Line. The horse he said was unlikely to win drifted, and didn’t win.
The very fact that Ferdy has few high priced winners shows that there are no hidden agendas, plot jobs, or betting coups. The horses are sent out to win their races, I don’t think it’s a secret when they are in with a chance, hence the odds are shorter.
If they aren’t backed they won’t win.
Just for the purpose of balance, I think it is only fair to mention that Kellystown Lad won in Ayr this week for the Murphy yard despite being friendless in the market at 12/1.
Although given that the odds on favourite ran out going past the stands and the second favourite looking quite reluctant on the run in, Graham Lee’s hand may have forced somewhat in this regard!
All Races
SP >15/2
Horse Held Up In Running
Jan 1st 2008+Trainer ….. Win ….. Run ….. SR% ….. P/L ….. ROI%
Jonjo O’Neill ….. 24 ….. 487 ….. 4.93 ….. -121.26 ….. -24.9
Ferdy Murphy ….. 7 ….. 389 ….. 1.8 ….. -301.12 ….. -77.41[/color:1c3tw6vn]
A King ….. 18 ….. 381 ….. 4.72 ….. -95.9 ….. -25.17
D Pipe ….. 15 ….. 366 ….. 4.1 ….. -92.25 ….. -25.21
Evan Williams ….. 13 ….. 283 ….. 4.59 ….. -66.79 ….. -23.6
G L Moore ….. 9 ….. 282 ….. 3.19 ….. -107.9 ….. -38.26
P J Hobbs ….. 15 ….. 278 ….. 5.4 ….. -7.47 ….. -2.69
B G Powell ….. 10 ….. 245 ….. 4.08 ….. -40.87 ….. -16.68
N A Twiston-Davies ….. 14 ….. 245 ….. 5.71 ….. 61.18 ….. 24.97Clearly in a different league to his contemporaries, horrific figures.
In the interest of fairness I’ll look at handicaps only next, novice events feature the majority running for a handicap mark and can skew the figures a bit.
If they aren’t backed they won’t win.
Just for the purpose of balance, I think it is only fair to mention that Kellystown Lad won in Ayr this week for the Murphy yard despite being friendless in the market at 12/1.
Although given that the odds on favourite ran out going past the stands and the second favourite looking quite reluctant on the run in, Graham Lee’s hand may have forced somewhat in this regard!
Fair point Ratpack – not sure why the marked drift, was 13/2 in the morning and went off at 12’s IIRC. The favourite cocking his jaw and running out probably helped Kellystown Lad’s chances but the Murphy yard IMO is generally one where the money talks.
Filtered down to handicaps only, no novice’s running for a mark to skew the figures.
Handicaps Only
SP >15/2
Horse Held Up In Running
Jan 1st 2008+Trainer ….. Win ….. Run ….. SR% ….. P/L ….. ROI%
Jonjo O’Neill ….. 21 ….. 258 ….. 8.14 ….. 40.38 ….. 15.65
D Pipe ….. 12 ….. 231 ….. 5.19 ….. -13.72 ….. -5.94
Ferdy Murphy ….. 3 ….. 207 ….. 1.45 ….. -168.92 ….. -81.61[/color:fhmmmtrj]
G L Moore ….. 6 ….. 182 ….. 3.3 ….. -61.19 ….. -33.62
A King ….. 6 ….. 169 ….. 3.55 ….. -59.72 ….. -35.34
P J Hobbs ….. 11 ….. 160 ….. 6.88 ….. 27.39 ….. 17.12
N A Twiston-Davies ….. 7 ….. 159 ….. 4.4 ….. -27.83 ….. -17.5
Evan Williams ….. 8 ….. 151 ….. 5.3 ….. -13.94 ….. -9.23
P Bowen ….. 7 ….. 135 ….. 5.19 ….. -3.1 ….. -2.3
P F Nicholls ….. 7 ….. 130 ….. 5.38 ….. -7.71 ….. -5.93Worse again. You can kiss your money goodbye, just 3 wins from 207 tries if the horse is held up and the money isn’t down. My conclusion, the RUK pundits certainly have a point.
* Results are to estimated BFSP and will be a percent or 2 either side of the actual BFSP.
On the running of Nouveau Maire all I can say is that the horse wasn’t 100% fit.
The trainer has had problems with his gallops due to the recent deluges and so the horse was several gallops short, being given a quiet run so that it would be right for a run over Xmas.
Also likely to go back to 2.5 miles next time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.