- This topic has 1,516 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ante-post bets yet to be included in totals:
2019 Oaks:
23 points @ 25/1 Hermosa
LAY 11 points @ 27/1 (betfair) Hermosa (min 28/1)
36 points @ 14/1 (B365) Iridessa (min 11/1)
4 points @ 25/1 (PP) Hermosa (min 20/1)
LAY 12 points @ 4/1 (betfair) Pink Dogwood (min 11/2)2019 Derby:
21 points @ 25/1 Quorto
27 points @ 25/1 Too Darn Hot
25 points @ 14/1 Anthony Van Dyk
LAY 10 points @ 5.6/1 Too Darn Hot2019 Queen Anne:
25 points @ 20/1 Century DreamCommonwealth Cup:
27 points @ 16/1 Ten SovereignsSt Leger:
27 points @ 14/1 Broome2019 Stakes: 2246
2019 Return: 3189.56
2019 Profit: +943.56 pointsTotal Stakes: 18,841
Total Return: 23,755.98
Total Profit: +4,914.98
Profit On Stakes: +26.09%Value Is EverythingThanks Oasis, Baynet and Botchy.
Went through a small losing run since my last update, with only one odds on saver (Crystal Ocean) and partial saver (Hey Garman) winning in six races before the Guineas… Including the first two races on Saturday. Not that I was doing anything wrong, Equilateral was a bloody good bet that almost paid off… And with ante-post bets on Too Darn Hot and Calyx already lost, the 2000 G’ didn’t look good either… Managed to achieve good +240 profit on the race with Magna Grecia and small +51 on the day to break the run. Then – as you say Bothchy – a great day Sunday. Three good wins from three races, particularly Hermosa’s all the way 33/1 1000 Guineas victory; +523 on that race alone and +994.5 points on the day… +770.47 since my last update.Value Is EverythingWhat made you so keen (and subsequent large stake) on Maqsad yesterday GT?
She won in a canter eh!
I was impressed with Maqsad‘s previous start, Oasis. May have been only a maiden but it was a Newmarket maiden and the first two finished 9 lengths clear. Much better than what’s usually thought of as maiden form and the second horse had the advantage of racing up the (on that day) imo advantageous rail. Bred to get at least 10f so should improve at yesterday’s trip. Haggas now in brilliant form too which is a massive plus in my workings out (take a look at Lanigan’s recent form regarding Worth Waiting’s chance too). But it was also as much about her rivals. Take Maqsad out of the race and it was in all probability a substandard Pretty Polly.
Shambolic had run well when 4th to Iridessa in the Fillies Mile, but was beaten over 6 lengths. Probably no better than a listed filly and I believed Maqsad potentially at least a Group 3 animal if not better… And after that Newmarket run Shambolic blotted her copybook with a poor effort in the Criterium – looking very awkward. So I thought the biggest threat to Maqsad may be a little temperamental. Although tbh Shambolic didn’t do anything wrong yesterday and may have been wrong about that. Clematis impressive at Kempton and had undoubted potential, but that form still gave her a lot to find on Maqsad and Shambolic. Clematis also very inexperienced with only one run to her name. Asking a lot in this company (but didn’t show what she could do yesterday for some reason). Lady Adelaide should’ve won her final start last year a lot easier than by a nose; but it was only a Class 5… And trainer Roger Charlton hasn’t hit form yet this season/virus? No winner for 40+ runners/since March! I’ll Have Another a long way last in Listed company last time out and hadn’t looked any better than Listed ability in several starts previously. Mona Lisa’s Smile won a Thurles maiden last time, but seemed flattered by an easy lead. Outsider Shagalla looked hopelessly outclassed, winning a Class 5 handicap on previous start by 1/2 length. Owner seemed to be having runners yesterday for a day out.
I rated Maqsad around a 42% chance (fair 11/8) and available @ 15/8 (34.8%).
My staking plan means:My idea of the horse’s chance 42, minus odds avainable 34.8 = 7.2
7.2 times by 8 = 57.6 (it’s usually 8 unless I think it’s a little tricky or had too much on rivals)
57.6 Plus my idea of its chance (42) = 99.699.6 rounded up = 100 points stake.
Maqsad’s SP was 5/4. Had she always been 11/8 or shorter I would not have backed her.
Value Is EverythingWhen you look at trainer form GT, what constitutes good, bad, average form to you? Is there a certain win % band you use? Or do you go deeper into it?
3:35 Chester (tomorrow):
22 points @ 20/1 (betfair) Kaloor (min 16/1)Value Is EverythingWhen you look at trainer form GT, what constitutes good, bad, average form to you? Is there a certain win % band you use? Or do you go deeper into it?
Good question Frenchy. For me, although I believe trainer form is very important – the way it is portrayed in the media/tv is often all wrong. When a trainer has a winner early in a day’s racing we often get presenters saying “trainer’s in form”. Or if having one important winner of a Group 1 or big handicap during a whole week is often talked of as “in form”… That’s nonsense.
Also can be more about what percentage of runners are running to form (rtf) and/or expectation of running well. There are organisations that produce an rtf figure, which is better than win only stats; but horses who are out of form going in to a race have a worse chance of running to form which may not be taken in to account with rtf figures. I prefer to take notice of expectation. eg Any horse at odds of 1/5 running second may not have run to form, where as a 33/1 shot finishing a fairly close up 4th of 20 probably has run to form. Also as far as “expectation” goes, I’ll take a look at the trainer’s 5 year strike rate and compare that to current strike rate. ie (he doesn’t but) If Gosden had a current strike rate of 15% there may be something wrong in the yard, some are likely to run poorly. If Mick Channon had a current 15% SR he’d be in bloody good form and therefore vast majority of his runners will be running to form. I also look at place records. For a trainer with a disappointing current win strke rate but with a better than expected place percentage – the poor win SR is probably a coincidence rather than being out of form.
I can see organisations might need to look at every horse/trainer in exactly the same way, so evryone in that organisation knows how it’s done. But I as an individual punter can be more vague. ie Some big trainers (eg Richard Hannon) have so many horses running, they can be judged on just a couple of days racing rather than a whole 2 weeks racing. Where as for a small trainer with very few runners might need to look back three weeks (although sometimes needed, further than 10 days imo results become less accurate). In other words I don’t judge every trainer in the same way.
Having a small sample of runners is difficult to judge trainer form accurately; it could be just a matter of the natural cycle. ie A trainer with a 25% SR will rarely have a pattern of three losers followed by one winner; sometimes winners will naturally come in quick succession and therefore sometimes a losing run will only be part of the natural cycle too… I’m willing to sometimes be wrong about a trainer being “in form”. Besides… Same is true for having too big a sample. Going too far back in time to be accurate. imo Trainers can both come in to form sooner than bigger samples show… And are no longer in form before it shows in a bigger sample too. So trainer form is not a definite thing – it’s all about probability. Just as assessing a horse’s stamina, pace or going requirements is looking at probability of running to form.
I normally go back roughly the previous 20 horses to judge a trainer’s (although it’s not a hard rule).
…Even looking at a trainer where I’d usually go back 20 horses, there are a few occasions when imo it is wise to look at a small sample. Say he/she has had a bad couple of weeks with no winners or places (including some at shortish prices) from 30+ runners, before in the last couple of days three runners, two win at 5/1 and 16/1 and the other a 33/1 close second. In that scenario, if concentrating on two week’s stats they’re not going to show the probable true state of affairs. ie 2 winners and one place in 33 starters may be poor comparing it to his/her 5 year stats. But imo probability is the trainer has turned the corner and probably now in good form (a */)…
I also think organisations fall down in having just one rating for an “in form trainer”. Nowadays I have four ratings counting as “in form” regarding the probability of the trainer being in form: Best is ***, then **, * and */. Also three poor ratings -/, through – to the worst X for Don’t Touch it! With these days a middle grade of // which applies to most trainers at any given place in time.
I believe trainers being “in form” isn’t only about an increased probability of the horse running to form. In my ecperience horses from In Form trainers are also more likely to improve on that form. Probably because the horse is thriving inwardly. When I used to go racing – looking at horses in the paddock, those from in form yards usually had very shiny and often dappled coats (a sign they’re in A1 condition)… Where as horses from out of form yards had dull coats and sometimes acting dull too (eg lethargic).
Value Is EverythingRP RTF stats are everyone’s friend when it comes to looking at trainer’s form. Quick and easy and gives you a jist of the current form of the stable. Lists the last 14 days runners also, great free service.
3:35 Chester (tomorrow):
22 points @ 20/1 (betfair) Kaloor (min 16/1)
65 points @ 7/2 (B365) King Ottokar (min 100/30)Value Is EverythingAlong with Timeform RTF figures, the RP RTF stats are good, Kev; and if punters can’t spend time looking at it more closely then better to use them than doing nothing. I just think they can be improved on. Taking the same time span for every trainer and at every moment in time are both imo not a good ideas.
Value Is Everything3:35 Chester (tomorrow):
22 points @ 20/1 (betfair) Kaloor (min 16/1)
65 points @ 7/2 (B365) King Ottokar (min 100/30)
savers:
10 points @ 11/1 (betfair) Dashing Willoughby (min 10/1)Value Is Everything2:25 Chester:
70 points @ 9/2 (B365) Mehdaayih (min 4/1)
59 points @ 100/30 (WH) Manuela De Vega (min 100/30)
saver:
13 points @ 10/1 (WH) Grace And Danger (min 10/1)Value Is Everythingsuperb, thanks GT! I had a feeling it was going to be a lot of detail in how you look at it, because I started looking at trainer form on Racing Post, but was thinking what you’ve just confirmed. There’s a lot more to it to look at it objectively.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.