May 23, 2006 at 05:54 #1770
I am currently basing my selections on a private handicap I compile that is based loosely on Racing Post Ratings. Top rated is normally between 4/1 & 6/1. Backing these selections to win makes a loss and backing e/w just about breaks even. Because of the fact that the ratings are not quite working I am currently modfying the way I calculate them.
One method I am looking at using seems to select quite a few horses in the lower part of the handicap. This is where I would like some advice. Previously my selections have been in the top half of the handicap.
I have always had a problem with selecting low weighted horses. I believe rightly or wrongly that they are running just above their class.
Do I drop this prejudice and look at them or is my original thinking the way to go.
Any advice will be gratefully recieved
MikelyMay 23, 2006 at 11:34 #61458MatronParticipant
- Total Posts 5829
Hello mikely64 & welcome to TRF. :wave:
I am afraid, I cannot pass opinion as handicap races are not my forte.
Hopefully, Artemis will spot this post and come back to you as his knowledge far more encomapassing than mine.
Regards- Matron<br>:cool:<br>May 23, 2006 at 17:52 #61459
Nice to see someone else using their own RP-derived ratings. The method I use(which ignores class or grade) doesn’t have any bias towards the top or bottom of the handicap, but there are subtle influences at work which might favour one or the other. For instance, if you use a horse’s win record, you usually find most points awarded to horses at the top of the handicap. If you give a lot of weight to speed ratings, I’ve found that you often the best scores near the foot of the handicap.<br>There are no hard and fast rules, just various factors which might cause your top-rated to be in a particular place. My own gut instinct is to favour horses towards the top of the handicap because they are usually the best horses in the race. However, I don’t let this gut instinct interfere with my selection process, so to put it succintly, I would advise you to back your top-rated regardless of where it is in the handicap.May 24, 2006 at 03:46 #61460
Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked for help is that the way I used the RPR my top rated nearly always seemed to be a recent winner in the top half of the handicap.
In trying to improve the method I started to incorporate topspeed into the way I came to my final rating and found it just like you said that a lot more low weighted horses would be top rated.
Because of the way I previously worked I knew that there were a lot more winners to be found amongst the top weights. I am currently working with this method without betting but I am getting itchy fingers just waiting to dive in but I have done this before much to my cost so will try and wait till I have more data.
Another point is that on occassion the top rated has been above 16/1, as of yet none of these have won, when I get selections in this price range is it advisable to back or question your ratings. I would hate to miss a big priced winner and I feel the data sample I have collected is too small to make a firm decision at this point.
MikelyMay 24, 2006 at 10:44 #61461
Provided your ratings are logically prepared (you can justify them to yourself), I wouldn’t let big prices put you off. It is these big-priced winners that contribute to your anticipated profit. Most of my bigger priced winners have been top-rated or within a few points of the top. They don’t come along every day, but are plentiful enough to give me confidence in the method I use. Your method will not be exactly the same as mine, but as you (and many others) are using RP data sources including RPR and Topspeed, I’m pretty confident you will find winners in the 10/1+ price range, probably enough to at least break even. If you are just betting singles or ew to reasonable stakes, now is probably the optimum time. I might be tempted to wait a week until the ground reverts to good. Best of luck.May 25, 2006 at 05:57 #61462
Thanks Artemis, its the confidence thing that hinders me, I have never had much success with selections in double figures and as I said I have recently changed my way of rating races so I have no way of checking previous results. Also I do not like big fields and that is probably where most of my bigger priced selections will come from. I like a maximum of 12 runners with possibly 4 or more that I can almost safely ignore it makes rating the race that much easier as time is a precious commodity to me at the moment. I find it so annoying spending time rating a race only to find no selection.
MikelyMay 25, 2006 at 20:54 #61463dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
I tend to ignore the position the horse is in the handicap because I reckon the handicaper has already taken care of this and allotted the best horses the most weight.
Can I ask, why you are concerned with looking the different sections of the race .. are you trying to get a short list to work from ?May 26, 2006 at 07:30 #61464
I used to try and eliminate some of the horses I felt had little chance and if I could not reduce the number of contenders to single figures I decided it was too competitive and left the race alone.
Now I give all the field a rating, it can be time consuming but I have in the past not considered the eventual winner because it did not fit in with the criteria I thought was needed to win the race.
I have found that horses rated in the middle and top of the handicap provide more winners. Horses below them are racing either at the limit of their ability or just above their true class level.
In saying that I am now incorporating Topspeed into my ratings and I am getting more potential bets from the lower part of the handicap. I have no past records to indicate to me how these selections will fair as it is all new this year but I have yet to have a winner from the bottom 25% of the race.
This is either being down to my ratings being no good or the low weights just do not compare well with the higher weighted runners. The reason for not disregarding these low weights completely are their prices, seldom in single figures and it wont take too many of them coming in to turn a profit.
Hope that answers your question. Any advice you could offer will be gratefully recieved
MikelyMay 26, 2006 at 07:35 #61465
Any suggestions on how to spot an improver. I think quite a lot of horses show some sort of improvement on their recent form to win a race, but how do you spot the one that will continue to improve
MikelyMay 26, 2006 at 10:36 #61466
Time is a precious commodity, so I understand your frustration at rating a race and not finding a suitable bet. I suggest you look beyond the top-rated, which is often the favourite. I often consider those rated within a few points(up to 5) which are attractively priced and IMO represent better value bets than the top-rated. As a rough guide to pricing up a race, I usually take 1 ratings point to be equal to 4 percentage probability points in handicaps and 5 percentage points in non-handicaps. As an example, in the Newmarket 3.30 today, my ratings are:
Signatory 113<br>Balyan 112<br>Young Mick 111<br>Alessano 111<br>River Alhaarth 110<br>Sweet Indulg 110<br>Akritas 110<br>Lets Roll 109<br>Sunisa 109<br>Feed The Met 109<br>Wavertree By 104
A very closely rated contest, in which the top-rated is likely to be fav, but represents no value. I will be considering smallish bets on Balyan and Young Mick.May 26, 2006 at 11:36 #61467
Its amazing how closely our ratings are to each other. The only real difference is that I have River Alhaarth very close to Signitory. I feel that the top rated will go off favourite and will be my selection for that race.
If you are looking at races for tomorrow let me know which ones and will post up my ratings for you to see <br>how close we are or are not
MikelyMay 26, 2006 at 14:53 #61468dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
Okay, this is my opinion ..
I see where you are coming from ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ if you want to play handicap races you will need to specialise. In my experience itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s no use trying to throw a blanket approach over all races, because each contest is vastly different from the next.
A good start would be to pick a distance group, seven furlong races might be suitable one to start with. Not many horses, relatively speaking, can do well at this distance .. too long for an out and out sprinter and a bit sharp for a miler.
On the question of Weight<br>I have doubts that you are looking at the weight carried in a manner that is helping you, this is the 5:20 from Haydock. The top weight is allotted 9-4 and the bottom weight is allotted 8-4 .. the difference between the top and the bottom is 14lbs.
1(5) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 213045/ Tudor Bell (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â J G M O’Shea 5 9 4 B Swarbrick (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>2(2) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 163132 Latif (USA) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ms Deborah J Evans 5 9 3 A Kirby (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>3(3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 3158-07 Nevada Desert (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â R M Whitaker 6 9 1 Dean McKeown Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>4(9) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 208900- Intricate Web (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â E J Alston 10 8 12 D Tudhope (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>5(8) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 2514-80 Little Bob Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â J D Bethell 5 8 11 G Gibbons Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>6(4) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 312430 Greenbelt Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â G M Moore 5 8 11 J Fanning Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>7(6) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 0057-90 The Composer Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â M Blanshard 4 8 9 F Norton Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>8(7) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 1090-67 Mixing Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â W Jarvis 4 8 7 P Hanagan Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>9(1) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 303154 Buscador (USA) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â W M Brisbourne 7 8 4 Luke Morris (7) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
If the distribution of the weight between the runners was equal from the bottom to the top of the handicap each horses weight would increase by (14 / 9 = 1.5lbs) per runner. I would tend to say that a jump of weight of 2lbs or less will could be insignificant Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â (rounding up the 1.5lbs to 2lbs). If I then re-arrange the card now into blocks of runners, working from top to bottom, leaving a space where the weight drops more than 2lbs.
1(5) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 213045/ Tudor Bell (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â J G M O’Shea 5 9 4 B Swarbrick (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>2(2) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 163132 Latif (USA) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ms Deborah J Evans 5 9 3 A Kirby (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>3(3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 3158-07 Nevada Desert (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â R M Whitaker 6 9 1 Dean McKeown Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
4(9) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 208900- Intricate Web (IRE) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â E J Alston 10 8 12 D Tudhope (3) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>5(8) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 2514-80 Little Bob Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â J D Bethell 5 8 11 G Gibbons Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>6(4) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 312430 Greenbelt Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â G M Moore 5 8 11 J Fanning Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>7(6) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 0057-90 The Composer Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â M Blanshard 4 8 9 F Norton Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>8(7) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 1090-67 Mixing Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â W Jarvis 4 8 7 P Hanagan Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
9(1) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 303154 Buscador (USA) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â W M Brisbourne 7 8 4 Luke Morris (7) Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â
ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s how I would start going about looking at weights.
I hope that helps.
<br>May 26, 2006 at 15:32 #61469
I won’t get involved in the weight debate mainly because I take no account of it when preparing ratings. I said earlier that I have a gut feeling that top weights do better over time, but that’s about as much as I think about it.
I used to post the best of my ratings(recommended bets) but took it as far as I could, so I stopped, leaving the way clear for other methods to be aired. Since then, I haven’t seen very much in the systems section that has aroused much interest.
Like you, I’m often pressd for time, especially on a Saturday, but I will try to put a few races on tomorrow to compare with your ratings.May 27, 2006 at 03:43 #61470
Maria Luisa 105<br>Love Thirty 104<br>Salamanca 101<br>Indian Steppes 101<br>Tanzanite 98<br>Kelucia 98<br>Squaw Dance 93<br>River Of Babylon 92<br>Toffee Vodka 89<br>Astronomia –
N5.15<br>Fort Churchill 97<br>Quizzene Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 89<br>Trance 89<br>Finalmente Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 87<br>Prime Contender 86<br>Sphinx 86<br>Michabo Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 83<br>Schooner 81<br>Tarabut 80<br>Taxman 65<br>Whispering Death –
Pieter Brueghel 110<br>Prince Tum Tum 108<br>Rainbow Rising 106<br>Hartshead 104<br>Roman Maze 104<br>Baylaw Star 96<br>Breaking Shadow 94<br>Steel Blue 91<br>Tagula Sunrise 90
Two of my top rated are in the bottom of the handicap. This is a prime example of the reason I posted originally. If my ratings are to be used for betting purposes I suppose they must be supported.
In the 3.15 at Catterick after rating the field I find I have to leave the race alone as the top rated does not have ideal conditions today.
So for today I will be backing
Fort Churchill N5.15<br>Maria Luisa A1.55
MikelyMay 27, 2006 at 10:28 #61471
I’ve just finished placing bets based on ratings worked out this morning. I’ve only done races from Ascot, Newmarket and Haydock.
Astronomia Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 118 Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â <br>Salamanca Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 116<br>Kelucia Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 115<br>Love Thirty Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 114<br>Tanzanite Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 114<br>River of Babylon Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 114<br>Maria Luisa Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 114<br>Toffee Vodka Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â 113
Kelucia@around 14/1 looks the value option.
From these ratings I can see that our methods are different. Although I make use of both Topspeed and RPR, they combine to form less than 50%(on average) of the total rating. Other positive factors such as the horse’s lifetime and course and distance record and jockeyship(highly rated) are taken into account. Recent form, especially if backed up by a good speed rating tends to score very highly.
From the other races rated, I have picked out a few value bets:
Kings Caprice@16/1 and Prince Of Thebes@33/1(said to be unsuited by soft, but still worth an interest)
Obe Brave. Clear top-rated looks best bet of the day.
Best of luck with your two bets. I’ve just had a quick look at Fort Churchill which I rate at 105, with Sphinx on 110. Around 16/1 seems decent value.
Edit: I’ve just checked out the Catterick race and I also have Peter Breughel top-rated. I wouldn’t let the ground put me off too much. Catterick is a fairly easy 7f and suits front runners. If PB can get to the front from his good draw, he has every chance.
Fort Churchill only 8/1. Not so good, unless you got a better price earlier.
(Edited by Artemis at 11:57 am on May 27, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.