- This topic has 74 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Was is not Tiggy Wiggy’s race where the commentator gave us the split for the first furlong – "It’s 11.8!!" – and then (instead of commentating on the race) said: "Let’s wait for the time of the second furlong…it’s 11.4!!" like some demented random number generator.
Whilst I would acknowledge that sectionals will be of use in later analysis of a race, randomly shouting numbers mid-race will hopefully have a limited future.
I kind of get the feeling that sectional timing is something that 99% of punters will insist they need (everything unavailable to punters is always seen as their potential betting panacea) and 0.1% will use. We should still have them, but any betting advantage from their use will soon be swallowed up by the efficiency of the market.
Mike
We should still have them, but any betting advantage from their use will soon be swallowed up by the efficiency of the market.
Mike
That is my worry Mike. At the moment I believe there are (more than any other) two aspects of studying form that are under-rated by the market. One is
Trainer Form
and the other
Pace
. For "pace" read
sectionals
. Once a significant number of intelligent punters understand nuances of sectionals – it’s almost bound to be less of an edge. ie If sectionals are more widely known – then likely pace will be allowed in the betting market in many more races than it is now.
Value Is EverythingThe best way to evince the effectiveness of sectionals would be to put some selections over on Daily Lays and Plays, based on situations where you believe the data gives a horse an edge over its rivals.
Nothing like a few winners to convert the doubters.
It is a major reason for my successful DLAP threads over the last few years Steve.
Value Is EverythingI can find nothing via google about the Newmarket trials you mentioned. I’d be grateful for a link to the story. I don’t doubt that it took place, but even if nobody could hit that 12 seconds, in one trial, on one track, it doesn’t prove that all UK & Ireland jockeys are no good at pace judgement. The sample and conditions were far too small.
Even if we accept that jockeys who can ride with a very accurate ‘clock in the head’, and accept too – which I do – that the horse who runs the most even fractions throughout a race is the one who uses his energy to best effect, what is a rider to do if he is instructed to ride, say each furlong at 16 seconds on a hold-up horse? Or on a front runner who gets disheartened when taken on and another jock decides to try and ride 15-second furlongs?
As I said, I believe that sectionals can be of some (limited) use when applied after the event, and that they can throw up the occasional dark horse. But (and this might be intellectual failure on my part)
I do not understand how they can be used reliably prior to a race when you do not know how all the other factors in a race are going to pan out.
I can certainly see the attraction for in-running punting for those who know the optimum pace for each horse in a race, but I think that sort of betting rules out 99% of punters, which, as was mentioned earlier, is no bad thing, I suppose for you specialists.
Joe,
With sectional (pace) analysis of a race it is possible not only to see a horse who – given the fractions of its last start – has done particularly well to win (or even finish 5th). But also, reliably tell when it runs in a race more likeky to play to its strengths – is likely to have a better chance than form suggests. You do need to be a bit careful here, occasionally a slow pace can favour a horse with an electrifying turn of foot whether it is prominent or held up (eg Kingman in a slowly run mile: A horse (its sectionals confirm) with sprinting speed.It is relatively easy to predict pace in a race. Many form books now give a number describing every past performance. Something like: 1 = Made all, 2 = Tracked Pace, 3 = raced mid-div, 4 = held up and 5 = dropped out. Where a race you’re looking to have a bet in has only one horse who’s produced a number 1 or number 2 recently
– then it is likely to get its own way in front. Especially if the prominent runner is a horse with good speed at the trip (ie a 7f-1m horse running at 1m rather than a 1m-10f horse running at a mile) then it could well be able to dictate a slow pace and be in the right position to kick for home. Please note: Only "likely" and not definite; anything could try different tactics, but we are dealing in probabilities, so "more likely" to get a race to suit (in turn) means likely to be under-estimated by bookmakers and so be a good value bet.Similarly, the more runners (in a betting race) who’ve raced prominently in the recent past – the more likely a race is to have fast early fractions. Although prominent runners going up in trip can often be tried with different tactics.
In races where there are either a lot of prominent runners or two or more runners who need to lead to produce their best – it has a greater chance of overly fast fractions and suiting those dropped out the back (4’s or ideally 5’s).
Value Is EverythingNothing like a few winners to convert the doubters.
I think Simon Rowlands has proved the case. He publishes a list of horses to back or lay next time based on sectional times which has proved very profitable.
Thanks, Ginger. Given the simplicity of working out the likely pace to a race on these classifications you mention, and the clear advantage it seems to give those who study sectionals, I cannot understand why there is such a craving to have them freely and accurately available.
It’s a pretty big risk to take to cut down your work (your – being a general your, not Ginger) in the hope that those who have not so far been willing to do that work, will continue eschewing sectionals to allow you to maintain your Edge – an unlikely outcome if the ‘system’ is so straightforward and profitable.
A bit like 120 turkeys voting for Christmas from January onward…ten per month, of course!
Nothing like a few winners to convert the doubters.
I think Simon Rowlands has proved the case. He publishes a list of horses to back or lay next time based on sectional times which has proved very profitable.
How profitable are we talking though? How long has this been going on, how many horses have been tipped, how many horses won, in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
Has it revolutionised punting to the level where we need only follow the sectionals to take the bookies to the cleaners?
I am from a scientific background and can assure you that we need a lot more evidence than this to consider a case "Proved"
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Nothing like a few winners to convert the doubters.
I think Simon Rowlands has proved the case. He publishes a list of horses to back or lay next time based on sectional times which has proved very profitable.
How profitable are we talking though? How long has this been going on, how many horses have been tipped, how many horses won, in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
Has it revolutionised punting to the level where we need only follow the sectionals to take the bookies to the cleaners?
I am from a scientific background and can assure you that we need a lot more evidence than this to consider a case "Proved"
The column has been going on for 18 months and provided 375 selections with 154 winners and a ROI of 14.5% which is pretty good in my book, especially for a list of horses to follow. with this comment ‘
in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?’
I think you’re misunderstanding what the column is about. He looks at races and from them identifies horses based on the sectionals to either back (mostly) or sometimes lay next time.
There is no holy grail to winning at punting because as has already been stated the market will eventually adjust but this is not a reason not to have them. Even for non punters sectional times give us a great insight into how good a horse actually is. I find it rather hard to fathom why people are so against them. They are an extra tool for analysis, if you don’t want to use them just don’t bother with them but why deprive others ?
We are one of the few nations that don’t use them, why do people want us to lag behind all the time ? Would you envisage watching athletics or car racing without sectionals ?
We’ve had comments on here such as ‘i can judge the pace without them’ not properly you can’t, you can just have a best guess. Sectionals give cold hard facts. Like at the end of a race you can really tell if a horse is accelerating or just running through beaten horses.
I am struggling to think of many communities so resistant to modernisation or change than the racing community.
"Kenh":2soc426z wrote:
I think Simon Rowlands has proved the case. He publishes a list of horses to back or lay next time based on sectional times which has proved very profitable.
How profitable are we talking though? How long has this been going on, how many horses have been tipped, how many horses won, in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
Has it revolutionised punting to the level where we need only follow the sectionals to take the bookies to the cleaners?
I am from a scientific background and can assure you that we need a lot more evidence than this to consider a case "Proved"
The column has been going on for 18 months and provided 375 selections with 154 winners and a ROI of 14.5% which is pretty good in my book, especially for a list of horses to follow. with this comment ‘
in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?’
I think you’re misunderstanding what the column is about. He looks at races and from them identifies horses based on the sectionals to either back (mostly) or sometimes lay next time.
There is no holy grail to winning at punting because as has already been stated the market will eventually adjust but this is not a reason not to have them. Even for non punters sectional times give us a great insight into how good a horse actually is. I find it rather hard to fathom why people are so against them. They are an extra tool for analysis, if you don’t want to use them just don’t bother with them but why deprive others ?
We are one of the few nations that don’t use them, why do people want us to lag behind all the time ? Would you envisage watching athletics or car racing without sectionals ?
We’ve had comments on here such as ‘i can judge the pace without them’ not properly you can’t, you can just have a best guess. Sectionals give cold hard facts. Like at the end of a race you can really tell if a horse is accelerating or just running through beaten horses.
I am struggling to think of many communities so resistant to modernisation or change than the racing community.
Thanks for providing the numbers Ken, it gives a much better idea of how the column is performing. Any tipping service yielding a profit is always a welcome one but I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate, given the edge the sectionals should provide.
I will try to explain the quote:-
in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
What I mean by that, is that we can take any system that generates tips and then measure the success of it in terms of win/lose/profit/loss. A winner is a winner but what I meant was whether you can analyse the sectionals of the race just won and directly tie it to the previous sectionals that led to the horse being tipped in the first place. I am wondering if some of the winning selections actually won but the sectional times didn’t reflect the theory.
Punters were brought up without sectionals and I suppose it’s hard to change their habits. There is enough to consider in a race already and until the data becomes consistently and widely available it is unlikely we will see more people beginning to embrace the concept. Some punters will still be picking a horse on the basis that it is "Due a win"
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate
You have to be kidding me, surely??
Mike
Was is not Tiggy Wiggy’s race where the commentator gave us the split for the first furlong – "It’s 11.8!!" – and then (instead of commentating on the race) said: "Let’s wait for the time of the second furlong…it’s 11.4!!" like some demented random number generator.
Whilst I would acknowledge that sectionals will be of use in later analysis of a race, randomly shouting numbers mid-race will hopefully have a limited future.
Mike
Spot on, absolute rubbish style of commentary from Simon Holt. I would imagine it was of no interest or use to 99.999% of C4 viewers. Got to make an allowance if James Willoughby, Simon Rowlands or Kenh are tuning in.
Meanwhile Steve Mellish on RUK was totally unaware of any sectional times being used at all at Newmarket despite them covering a quarter of my screen for every race and him desperately wanting them for the Cheveley Park.
Thanks for providing the numbers Ken, it gives a much better idea of how the column is performing. Any tipping service yielding a profit is always a welcome one but I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate, given the edge the sectionals should provide.
I will try to explain the quote:-
in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
What I mean by that, is that we can take any system that generates tips and then measure the success of it in terms of win/lose/profit/loss. A winner is a winner but what I meant was whether you can analyse the sectionals of the race just won and directly tie it to the previous sectionals that led to the horse being tipped in the first place. I am wondering if some of the winning selections actually won but the sectional times didn’t reflect the theory.
Punters were brought up without sectionals and I suppose it’s hard to change their habits. There is enough to consider in a race already and until the data becomes consistently and widely available it is unlikely we will see more people beginning to embrace the concept. Some punters will still be picking a horse on the basis that it is "Due a win"
The Timeform Sectionals method is a cut down version of sectional timings that uses just single races to identify horses that "could" achieve a higher (or lower) Timeform performance rating in that race had the pace been more even. There are far better methods if you have more data but it is suited to the scarcity of sectional data in UK. From identifying horses that should be rated higher but cannot be by traditional methods, Timeform identify horses that are possibly well in for future races. They have a theory – they apply and test the theory, and it works in practice to a far higher level than chance. That is the scientific method.
When it comes to future races there is often no applicable sectional data for other runners. Sectionals are not used for prediction of that race. The well-in horse either proves it is well-in or other horses with no data are even more well-in or the pace is wrong again and the Timeform well-in horse does not rise to the expected extra potential. If you ignore the actual causal conditions of the race (cause not correlation) you are not being scientific at all – just pedantic. The method has proven to work in that the predictions of extra ability are predicted and published by sectional data ahead of future races.
It is exactly the same with speed ratings except you have these for each horse in the predicted race. A horse with an outstanding speed rating may win a slow or fast race or lose to a "slower" horse that has greatly improved on the training grounds, or lose as the pace shape was not at all suited to its best performance. These are part of the imponderable’s of racing. All you are doing is having some evidence that it is possible that your selection is superior. If it is profitable long term ,and it is, then that is all that matters.
I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate
You have to be kidding me, surely??
Mike
Do you base your punting on sectional timings or not Mike?
The sectional timings seem to be being put forward as some sort of magical panacea by some people.
Bear in mind I am talking about whether a theory has been
proven
or not here. Kenh initially said that Simon Rowlands had proven the point through his analysis but I am not convinced by the data that we can take this forward and beat the bookies to death with it.
Most people’s punting in this country could be improved by simple education about why they are backing the horses they select. More self discipline and selectiveness about what they are placing their money on would give them as much edge as getting right into the heart and erse of the timings, as far as I am concerned at least
You have had a go at the punting game as a living and if you made money that is all well and good. My old boss was a multi-millionaire though and he was a bookie. His philosophy was that it is all very well washing your face but that there needs to be some "cream" for the big cats of this world.
Until I see the bookies getting "creamed" by the users of sectional timings I will remain sceptical that picking a profit is evidence that you have sneaked a Trojan Horse into the bookmakers fort via the stopwatch.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Thanks for providing the numbers Ken, it gives a much better idea of how the column is performing. Any tipping service yielding a profit is always a welcome one but I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate, given the edge the sectionals should provide.
I will try to explain the quote:-
in how many races did the sectional time actually be reflected as the relevant and probable factor in the result?
What I mean by that, is that we can take any system that generates tips and then measure the success of it in terms of win/lose/profit/loss. A winner is a winner but what I meant was whether you can analyse the sectionals of the race just won and directly tie it to the previous sectionals that led to the horse being tipped in the first place. I am wondering if some of the winning selections actually won but the sectional times didn’t reflect the theory.
Punters were brought up without sectionals and I suppose it’s hard to change their habits. There is enough to consider in a race already and until the data becomes consistently and widely available it is unlikely we will see more people beginning to embrace the concept. Some punters will still be picking a horse on the basis that it is "Due a win"
The Timeform Sectionals method is a cut down version of sectional timings that uses just single races to identify horses that "could" achieve a higher (or lower) Timeform performance rating in that race had the pace been more even. There are far better methods if you have more data but it is suited to the scarcity of sectional data in UK. From identifying horses that should be rated higher but cannot be by traditional methods, Timeform identify horses that are possibly well in for future races. They have a theory – they apply and test the theory, and it works in practice to a far higher level than chance. That is the scientific method.
When it comes to future races there is often no applicable sectional data for other runners. Sectionals are not used for prediction of that race. The well-in horse either proves it is well-in or other horses with no data are even more well-in or the pace is wrong again and the Timeform well-in horse does not rise to the expected extra potential. If you ignore the actual causal conditions of the race (cause not correlation) you are not being scientific at all – just pedantic. The method has proven to work in that the predictions of extra ability are predicted and published by sectional data ahead of future races.
It is exactly the same with speed ratings except you have these for each horse in the predicted race. A horse with an outstanding speed rating may win a slow or fast race or lose to a "slower" horse that has greatly improved on the training grounds, or lose as the pace shape was not at all suited to its best performance. These are part of the imponderable’s of racing. All you are doing is having some evidence that it is possible that your selection is superior. If it is profitable long term ,and it is, then that is all that matters.
Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that
any
system can be successful. The usual vagaries of a horse race can come and go and at the end of it all you have a profit.
The question is whether there is evidence that the system actually works because of the theory, or despite of it? Lucky winners are never sustainable. You can go away happy you got a winner and content that overall you are ahead but is your system generating winners for the reasons you predicted it would? If it isn’t doing so how can you be sure it will continue?
Long term is a hard amount of time to define. You have one, two maybe four years in a row where you finish ahead overall but you then have to ask what you have at stake and how much it means whether you finish ahead or not?
Any serious business is unlikely to get complacent based on a handful of years in the game and what I am talking about here is whether sectional timings can sustain an edge well into the future.
The history of racing has gone past largely absent of sectional timings. I am sure people made good money and many people lost money over that period.
The usual question arises when you consider why the man who found the goose that lays golden eggs decides to share it with the world at large, rather than just quietly trouser the easy money?
The best of luck if you are all following the sectionals and making a living out of it. If it ever gets as reliable as the times in athletics, we’ll all be backing 1/5 shots.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate
You have to be kidding me, surely??
Mike
Do you base your punting on sectional timings or not Mike?
The sectional timings seem to be being put forward as some sort of magical panacea by some people.
"You have to be kidding" that your dismissal of a 41% strike rate returning 14% ROI as questionable was how I interpreted Mike’s rebuttal: a rebuttal I wholly agree with
I’ve no idea if Rowlands’ ‘system’ is based solely on selections determined by a lone sectional timing filter or if it’s an adjunct to other ‘traditional’ filters
Either way, that splendid SR (not that SR is of any particular relevance, other than a high one being psychologically comforting) and equally splendid ROI (Relevant with a big bold capital R) are most impressive
Of course, 375 bets is too small a sample to be drawing long-term conclusions about the veracity of any lone-filter system or adjunctive method; but it’s certainly promising
I doubt anyone will ever "cream" the bookies using this latest in a long line of novel punting techniques that buzz and sting for a while before being swatted and anthisaned by market correction once public domain; but objective "scientific" knowledge such as sectionals can only be a boon to the steadfast and industrious punter given thaty the large majority of his peers are irresolute and lazy
Sectionals don’t promise a miraculous loss-to-14% profit but perhaps a modest leg-up profits-wise for already astute punters
I would just point to this "more scientific" approach giving 221 losers from 375 selections and perhaps question the strike rate
You have to be kidding me, surely??
Mike
Do you base your punting on sectional timings or not Mike?
As Drone noted, I was just commenting on the maths of Mr Rowlands (so far) successful method, nothing else.
The sectional timings seem to be being put forward as some sort of magical panacea by some people.
Totally agree with this, as I stated in a previous post.
Mike
Anyway, whatever happened to the Dosage Index? Wasn’t that going to revolutionise punting as we know it?
I certainly remember James Willoughby spouting forth prodigiously on the subject a few years ago. Probably hasn’t got time now, what with all the sectional time analysis to get through.
Then there was Baynesian Theory, is that still doing the rounds?
What about weighing horses? Weighing trainers?
Penetrometers, neural networks, artificial intelligence, nearest the bull…
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.