- This topic has 30 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been getting the impression that Mordin was going a bit mental about French horses and systematically overrating them.
So, I went back over his weekly columns at his website to see how they performed.
I took all his French (flat) reports from 2005, restricted it to just French trained horses writen in all capitals (which is Mordin’s way of say "horse to follow"), looked at their next 3 starts (Mordin’s usual approach) in Europe.
In addition, if Mordin clearly stated some conditions for backing the horse (e.g. distance), I tried to stick to just that. Also, if the horse changed stable (and I noticed), I didn’t include runs for the new yard.
(sorry for the complicated rules, but I was trying to be as fair to his comments as I could)
I ended up with 21 horses:
HELIOS QUERCUS<br>RAGEMAN<br>CARLOTAMIX<br>IN CLOVER <br>SHIROCCO<br>REEFSCAPE<br>OISEAU RARE<br>CACIQUE <br>NIPPING <br>VOLTMETER<br>NEEDLECRAFT<br>JANJAN<br>ATLANDO<br>VALIXIR<br>VADAWINA<br>APSIS<br>WHIPPER<br>ELOPA<br>PINSON<br>BLUE KITE<br>RUWI
The horses ran a total of 49 subsequent races under the rules of my experiment and won 15 of those races.
The return from backing them all to level stakes would have been +5.49.
i.e. 11.2% profit.
I think that, for a "horses to follow" list, that’s pretty good going.
Interestingly, the 4 horses that were added to the list in November (HELIOS QUERCUS, RAGEMAN,<br>CARLOTAMIX, IN CLOVER) scored a shocking 0/12 on their subsequent runs so, without them, he would have done really well.
I wonder if that was just bad luck, a flaw in his ratings or just a case of end of season form being unreliable and not reproducing itself in the Spring.
Anyway, hats of to Mordin. His ratings and comments get a slagging on this forum, but these figures suggest he deserves some respect.
Steve
Just to clarify, I did not type IN CAPITALS because I expect you to hang on my every word. Like Mordin, perhaps, I left the CAPS LOCK on.
Yes, 11.2% is a very good return.
Unfortunately, Mordin’s telephone clients appear to have fared less well(source: relayline.com):
For the month of September, which has been a difficult month for many, his returns are:
Bets 35 <br>Winners 5 (14.3%)<br>Returns to advised stakes – 21.8pts(-60%)
I am not knocking anyone on the strength of a few weeks results. The results on relayline go back about 5 years, but maybe someone else can check on his performance over this period – honestly, I haven’t looked.
Nick Mordin is a very knowledgeable and entertaining writer on the subject of racing systems and speed ratings and he claims to have punted professionally for many years. I don’t blame him for making extra income from running a tipping line and a web site(which may be free). I think he has added more to the sport than he has taken out, which cannot be said for many people offering similar services. Good luck to him.
A backfitted system, with contrived rules that produces a profit….
Backfitted? Contrived?
In what way?
(1) The 3 run rule seems to be appropriate since pretty much every system he comes up with uses that rule.
(2) The capitals is, as I understand it, the way he shows it’s a horse to follow.
(3) As for the "under recommended circumstances" rule, I thought that was fair enough.
However, it probably cut his profits as I left out a win by Shirocco that was on "good ground" and, although his comments about Apsis:
"It also suggests that he may well be best at shorter trips. After all he has now won all four times that he’s run less than ten furlongs and lost both times he’s gone ten furlongs."
suggested I leave out the horse’s 2 losses at 10f and include a later 11/4 win, I stuck with the longer races.
So, it can’t be said that I applied the rule to bend the rules in Mordin’s favour.
(4) I chose last year as I wanted a whole year’s data with the horses having had the chance of running a few times after he highlighted them.
(5) And, finally, I chose France because the whole idea was that he was tipping up a lot of French horses that weren’t actually amounting to anything.
I think my approach, though slightly convoluted and somewhat subjective, was the fairest interpretation I could make of the recommendations he was making in his columns.
If you disagree, why not give some reasons reasons why?
Steve
Agree with TDK. The numbers don’t lie and he is a poor tipster. He may be able to offer ideas which are of interest but I wouldn’t be backing his tips.
I did enjoy reading his systems book and it was thought provoking, but his idea of a winning system was not the same as mine. There isn’t one system in that book that passes chitest (ie, isn’t luck).
I got the feeling when I had finished reading it that he had wasted a lot of time.
From anything I have read about the guy, he seems to picka  horse he likes then work his "rules" and "ratings" around this horse to suit them. In particular this year the French three year old colts…..because he rated the French colts so highly he had to give credence to Septimus (who ran well in his trial).
Last year he took a dislike to George Washington, favouring Horatio Nelson. Despite winning the Guineas Mordin refuses to rate him highly, and because of this he feels obliged to undermine the likes of Sir Percy and Dylan Thomas.
Some of his quotes in the Irish Field this weekend about the Arc were laughable:
I’d bet that in his heart of hearts Fabre knows his best chances of winning the Arc lie with Rail Link. That’s why he’s given Shirocco and Hurricane Run such light campaigns – in order to keep them fresh for the big late season international prizes like the Canadian International, Japan Cup, Breeders’ Cup and Hong Kong Cup where older horses have the edge
Perhaps Mr Mordin should tell Coolmore and Shiroccos owners that their horses are not being aimed/and peaked at the most prestigous all aged 1m4f race in the world.
Shirocco did at least bear out his connection’s assertion that he doesn’t need soft ground. But I do rather wonder whether he’ll be at his best for the Arc. Andre Fabre said he wasn’t fit for this race and in my experience it takes more than three weeks to get a horse that is noticeably unfit in top condition. I rather suspect that Fabre has his eye on later targets with this one.
Guy is a joke….I think Mr Fabre knows how to get a horse ready and even "fit" in time for the Arc!!!! And what "experience" has he had?!
(Edited by Aidan at 10:16 pm on Sep. 20, 2006)
I agree that Mordin does tend to talk up horses as potential superstars only for those horses to be anything but.
In fact, it was remembering his suggestion after the Criterium International that Carlotamix could be another Dalkhani or Bago that led to me doing this little survey.
However, although most of these horses rarely turn into anything spectacular, if my small sample was anything to go by, overall he manages to find horses that are worth following.
Which would mean that his ratings are giving him an advantage over the market.
Remember, he was talking up Falbrav and Rakti before they ever ran here. Similarly, he picked out Shirocco and Electrocutionist .. and many more
(and, of course, during that time, he picked out a lot of turkeys too)
In the survey I did, he picked out Pinson after a victory by only a neck in a £6k maiden race at M-L.
The horse won its next 3 races, including a G2 and a G3, before running in the Champion Stakes and being bought by Godolphin.
Last year he took a dislike to George Washington, favouring Horatio Nelson. Despite winning the Guineas Mordin refuses to rate him highly,
Given that he uses speed figures and the guineas was slow, how could Mordin suddenly rate him highly?
I remember Mordin being against Dalakhani all the time because he’d never given the horse a big figure.
But the simple reality is that some horses never run a big speed figure until they have to and, once he finally met, and beat, the older horses, Dalakhani got his big speed figure from Mordin.
That’s one of the flaws of speed figures: fast horses can run a lot of slow races.
And that’s one of the reasons why I’m not a fan of speed figures.
This is funny, here’s I am, defending Mordin.
However, I don’t share his love of speed figures or agree wtih the way he uses stats.
But it seems fair for me to take the other side when a survey I did of his weekly reports (that was intended to show that his recommendations were dodgy) showed that he would have turned a profit over 49 races.
Steve
PS If he’s doing so badly with his pay tipping service but well with his free suggestions, maybe he should jsut swap them around.
Given that he uses speed figures and the guineas was slow, how could Mordin suddenly rate him highly?
because he ran major figures at 2yo..which Mordin missed..due to his flawed Irish ratings.
The key word in my comment was "suddenly" which addresses Aidan’s phrase "Despite winning the Guineas".
Mordin will have some success..as he is following faster than class horses…but he overrates them by about 10lb.
It seems to me that it’s maybe a case of:
Mordin identifying faster than class horses <br> +<br>the trainers not getting so overexcited and continuing to place the horses in the right races.
So speed figures have flaws, therefore you are not a fan.
That’s not actually what I said.
Steve
- Total Posts 17716
<br> Stav
Dream on!:biggrin:
No-one should slag off anyone’s methods really, but to be fair Stav, some people may have tried the methods you have failed with and made them work better than you.
Everyone has different abilities and can use them to their own advantage.
Just because speed figures have brought you the most success – you probably have a very mathematical brain – doesn’t mean other people can’t have had equal success with a different system that suits them.
‘Perhaps you keep missing them as you only ever seem to have a go at me and EC.’
FFS.  I’m making a balanced point here – and mostly agreeing with you, as you say in your post!!  I was actually giving you a form of compliment in there, in case you didn’t notice – but I was just trying to suggest that some people may smile at your speed figure passion for the same reason that you smile at them.  I’m not trying to start a fight.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a go at you.  I’ve grumbled at EC in the past, but I agree with much of what he has to say, and he and I have had some very interesting sire stats discussions in the past. ÂÂÂ
What I hate is the whole ‘paranoia’ approach – as (apart from reet hard’s continuing pathetic vendetta against you two) there seems to be no justification of it.
If other forumites have a go at you and EC occasionally, it is probably because, like me, they get sick and tired being accused of bias and sniping, when they are just trying to join in the debate. ÂÂÂ
You are becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  <br>
Stav
the general complaint about speed figures/ratings made by those not using them always seems to be a case of "they can’t give 100% accurate results so must be a waste of time".
I’m with you in believing that there’s no 100% effective approach to analysing flat racing.
I read comments from certain people slagging it off
I wasn’t slagging off speed figures, just saying I’m not a fan.
Nor was I slagging off using stats, just saying that I don’t agree with the way Mordin uses stats (I actually think that stats can be very useful when used judiciously).
The reason why I made these comments (about speed figures and stats) was that I felt that I was coming across as a "Mordin devotee" because I was presenting a case in his defense.
I wanted to make it clear that I’m not someone who follows his methods (which are, as we all know, speed figures and stats).
I think he’s an interesting writer, but I find myself shaking my head more often than nodding when I’m reading his stuff.
As I said before, I did this little survey because I was getting the impression that his figures for French horses were bananas.
When I found out that they had actually been profitable (though, as TDK said, just a sample), I thought it would be interesting to a number of people on here.
Steve
The inadequacies in Mordin’s time and stats based approach are highlighted by his results which are, as illustrated by TDK earlier, poor.
He does have some interesting ideas however and can present these plausibly and in an entertaining fashion which, I suppose, is why he continues to get published.
I’ve found stats more profitable than analysis of race times and less complex and time consuming. I am sure, however, that it is possible, with the requisite amount of graft, to eke a profit from a solely time based approach.
I’d never ignore time and it is a factor to consider but IMO it’s no holy grail, far from it in fact.
(IMO that is, just for all those suffering from the paranoia so well diagnosed by Sal!)<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.