- This topic has 336 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
A few more qualifying bets today, mostly over the jumps.
With the jumps, I use the Official Rating (OR) adjusted to 12st as my base form figure in handicaps (with the proviso that it is at least 7lbs below the RPR top-rated). In all other races, I take the RPR top-rated minus 7 as the base form figure. The base speed figure is always 10lbs or points below the base form figure.
There are no points for the draw, but you will find that horses tend to score more points in other areas such as course wins/places as well as generally having better wins/runs profiles than flat horses because of the smaller field sizes in chases.
I have made no mention of the going because I don’t think it can be easily quantified. Some horses either act on a particular going or they don’t, while others are less easy to predict. It’s a bit of a minefield, really, but I’m pretty sure it is one of the most important factors that ifluence the outcome of a race. I tend to trust the trainer to decide whether a horse should take it’s chance on dubious ground. No doubt some trainers will let horses run on unsuitable ground to get the horse’s handicap mark down, or let them run because they’ve made the journey to the course and connections expect a run. In the better races, which I tend to favour, horses are usually withdrawn if the going  doesn’t suit them. Occasionally, the obvious form choice will drift in the market due to adverse ground but still win because it was much better than the opposition. So, in short as Micawber might say, I ignore the going.
Except, of course, where it influences the effect of the draw.
Today’s qualifying selections:
Wolv. 2.50 Corniche Dancer 98(+12) 20pts win 2nd<br>Ludl.  2.40 Xellance 134(+13) 20pts win won 1/2<br>     3.10 Moorlaw 119(+23) 10pts win unpl<br>     3.40 Champagne Lil 137(+15) 30pts win unpl<br>     4.10 Princess Grec 124(+7) 30pts win unpl
Stakes 110pts loss 80pts
(Edited by Artemis at 10:05 am on Oct. 8, 2004)
Today’s qualifying bets:
York 2.05 Word Perfect 116(+15) 20pts win 3rd<br>Carl 3.30 Gatorade 131(+17) 20pts win won 11/4
The competitive all-aged D+ handicaps at York didn’t produce any clear top-rated(3 or more points clear).
<br>Stakes 40pts Win 35pts<br>(Edited by Artemis at 10:16 am on Oct. 8, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 5:14 pm on Oct. 8, 2004)
Artemis,
A very interesting view on the going. I tend to look at the top few rated, and then eliminate if the trend of their performances indicates that today’s going is unsuitable.
I use this method for other factors such as distance, class, trainer and course.
LFW,
If today’s going is unsuitable, why are they running the horse? If I judge the suitability of the going, am I not supposing that I know more than the horse’s connections? But I do see your point, because so often horses are allowed to run when they are almost certainly unable to give their best on the going, the course, or the distance. I just got fed up with having to guess, so came to the inescapable conclusion that you either set a filter(s) such as;
‘must have form on today’s firm/soft surface’, or<br>’must have form over today’s trip’
or you can trust the trainer and leave it to them.<br>Either way, you will miss winners and losers. At the moment I’m adopting the second approach (trust the trainer), but I will always consider changing to your approach if results speak in its favour.<br>
Only two qualifying bets today.
York 2.05 Nufoos 132(+19) 20pts ew 2nd <br>     4.45 Noble Duty 113(+14) 10pts win 3rd
Stakes 50pts loss 6pts
In the handicaps at York, there are too many horses within two points of the top-rated, so no qualifying bets. At Bangor, in the 3.20 was the only race where there were horses with recent speed ratings, but they both ended up with the same final rating, so no bet.<br>There were no Grade D+ races at any of the other meetings.
(Edited by Artemis at 5:09 pm on Oct. 9, 2004)
Today’s qualifying bets:
Good 3.45 Light Wind 118(+18) 30pts win unpl<br>     4.20 Market Leader 99(+14) 10pts ew 3rd 9/1<br>     4.55 Bee Minor 99 (+14) 10pts win unpl<br>Bath  5.05 Safirah 93(+10) 10pts ew   2nd 9/2
Stakes 80pts Loss 33pts
Weekly total: <br>Stakes 430pts Loss 178pts
Running Total since Sep 23rd:<br>Stakes 1,782 pts Win 82pts
(Edited by Artemis at 6:24 pm on Oct. 10, 2004)
After the weekend famine, today seems to provide plenty of betting opportunities. Most pundits agree that this time of year is transitional for both flat and jumps.  The going is changeable, and the summer form is proving less reliable as some horses have had enough for the season. The problem is the horses can’t speak so even the trainers don’t always know when they have gone over the top. Over the jumps, many horses are coming back after a long absence and fitness is uncertain. The end result is that many fancied runners fail to oblige. On the other hand, many horses with good recent form who are not expected to handle going changes, or appear to be outclassed, can make their fitness tell at rewarding odds.
Today’s qualifying bets:
Wind 2.20 Holly Springs 112(+18) 10pts win 2nd<br>     3.20 Street Life 112(+16) 20pts ew 4th 9/2<br>     4.20 Thistle 100(+19) 10pts win won 4/9<br>Ayr   3.00 Great Scott 91(+11) 10pts win unpl<br>     3.30 Zomerlust 105(+17) 20pts win 2nd 9/4<br>     5.00 Jazz Scene 126(+13) 10pts win 2nd 6/4<br>Leic  4.10 Carte Diamond 124(+20) 30pts win 3rd 9/4<br>     5.10 Nice Tune 111(+12) 10pts win unpl
Stakes 140pts loss 84pts<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 7:20 pm on Oct. 11, 2004)
It will be interesting to see how today’s selections at Ayr get on. I live about 3 miles from the course and it’s been raining almost constantly for a week or so.
Do you not find that results are less predictable when the going turns to soft? I personally don’t bet at this time of the year, it can tun into a complete disaster .. !! I might be tempted to lay a few though.
I’ve been watching this since you started and I’m beginning to understand how you decide what your bets are now and how you get a feel for each race. You seem to concentrate on horses that have positive factors and bet on these according to the price you can get in relation to how clear they are in the ratings? Have you ever considered laying horses that are poor value or even false favourites?
Dave.
Hi dave,
I’ve said before that I think the going is arguably the most important consideration in a race, but you cannot factor it in as a number. So, probably to my cost, I tend to leave it to the trainer to decide whether or not to let the horse run.
Betting at this time of year can be perilous, especially with changing going and horses losing form suddenly and unexpectedly. I’m trying to show that sticking to a logical selection procedure can overcome all the ups and downs of form, going changes and all the other disadvantages of autumn betting. I think that you can make 5 to 10 per cent over a year doing it this way, but there are bound to be losing periods and this time of year is more likely than high summer to produce such periods.
I’ve certainly considered laying what appear by the ratings to be poor value favourites, but haven’t looked at it in any great depth. I think what puts me off is that you need to be laying quite a few in each race and you also need to spend a lot of time at your desk watching the market for hedging and arb situations – really, it’s a full time job and you need quite a sizeable bank to make it all worthwhile. You would have to be dealing in £000’s of turnover a week at a small margin.
The selection process is quite objective, or deterministic as systems people might say because there is a definite outcome once you set up the rules for awarding points. The ratings are awarded based on pre-set criteria, the only things I have to decide being the strength of various jockeys and the effect of the draw. In fact, ordinarily I wouldn’t ‘fancy’ some of the selections because they seem reluctant to put their heads in front, but if they are qualifying bets, you have to go with them. This latest version of the method is really under trial on this thread. Only time will tell if it is successful.
Yes, it’s interesting stuff …
what I was meaning there was that you have your selections done, just take a note of the ones that don’t qualify at say less than 2/1 and take a separate note of the ones that do qualify at less than 2/1, ignoring all other considerations. Then take a note of all races where the forecast favourite is less than 2/1.
That would give you three lists,
All<br>System Bets<br>Non System Bets
If after a month, for example,
All; ROI -8% and had a strike rate of 32%.
Non Selections; ROI -25% and the strike rate was 20%.
Selections; ROI +2% with a strike rate of 46%.
You could then say that selections have a +26% strike rate over non-selections and is +14% on all bets.
ROI would have a +27% on non selections and +10% on all bets.
You would need about 200 races in each category to make this meaningful but is worth thinking about and might save you a bit of time …
I think there’s a grammatical error in your last post Artemis .. you’ve written ‘trust’ next to the word ‘Trainer’ … :biggrin:
I’ll have to thinkabout that one, dave. I’ve got to go out today (they are letting me out for the day!), but here are today’s qualifying bets:
Leic 2.50 Mansfield Park 131(+13) 20pts win won4/9<br>    3.20 Luis Melendez 107(+17) 10pts win won 5/2<br>    4.50 Red Peony 118(+12)  20pts win 2nd<br>Ayr  2.30 Alrafidan 99(+10) 10pts win 2nd<br>    3.00 Kings Account 99(+15) 20pts win won 9/2<br>    4.30 Circassian 105(+17) 20pts ew 2nd 2/1
Stakes 120pts profit 82pts<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 6:52 pm on Oct. 12, 2004)
dave,
I see what you are getting at, and it would be an interesting exercise, but I’m pretty confident that qualifying bets under 2/1 would give a better return than non-qualifiers, but I feel that it would be around 15% at best. All favourites under 2/1 would definitely show a loss, probably around the figure you estimate (-8%). I’m not sure that performing the exercise would save me any time because I wouldn’t be able to change the ratings method or staking strategy in the light of any findings. I started out with the proposition, which I hold to be true, that:
‘at all prices qualifying horses should in the long term give a better return than non-qualifiers’
If this were shown not to be the case, I would have to abandon this method. Although I firmly believe that it is true (over a long period), I don’t think there is much more than 10 to 20% in it i.e. the difference between a 10% loss and a 10% profit.
True, if you look at things in the short to medium term, but if you were to put together a simple tick sheet. To include things like; going, flat/NH or what ever else you think might be important which are not immediately measureable, then you would soon get a clear picture of what your method actually produces.
I did a similar exercise at the beginning of this year using my own ratings. After a month I had a very clear and definite picture of where I was and how the rating were producing a profit. A picture you don’t on a week to week view.
It will either make you very confident in your approach or you’ll know that your wasting your time … ÂÂÂ
I always take the long view about any system/method because, as you know short term fluctuations are inevitable. I think that if you have three losing months, or worse, exhaust your bank, it’s time to draw the stumps and try something else.
I don’t think tick sheets would help me because I know when losing runs are most likely to occur and my method partly caters for this by producing fewer qualifying bets. The only exception is the problem of changing going, which cannot be got round objectively.<br>I could look at qualifiers and eliminate them if they have not shown form on the prevailing going, but I prefer to ignore the going in the hope that qualifiers who don’t run up to their expected form are compensated for by those who win despite the going being unsuitable, perhaps at rewarding odds.
Today’s qualifying bets:
Ling 4.00 Emerald Lodge 104(+14)  20pts win won 11/8<br>Weth  4.10 Noshinannikin 156(+21) 30pts win won 7/2
Stakes 50pts profit 132pts
A lot of the runners in jumps races are returning after a lay off of over 60 days, and consequently have no recent speed rating which makes it very difficult for them to be qualifying bets. This is because they can only get about 4 points from their form rating, and need 6 points from other positive factors to reach the minimum qualifying score of 10. This is more likely to occur over jumps than on the flat because:
1. Jockeys tend to ride the same horse each time it runs, which is worth 3 points if that jockey has ridden the horse on its last 3 outings.
2. The best jockeys tend to get more rides in the better (D+) races, and the average size of the fields are smaller, so more points tend to be awarded per runner.
3. Smaller field sizes also produce horses with higher wins to runs ratios, shorter losing sequences and better records over course and distance than their flat counterparts.
The consequence is that there will be some qualifying bets(not many) on horses which have not had a recent run. Such horses will have to be top-rated or very close to top-rated on RPR, be awarded at least 6 points for positive factors and be at least three points clear of any of its rivals. A pretty tall order.
To illustrate the point, below are the final ratings for the Wetherby 3.35, a race where 6 of the 8 runners have been absent for 60+days.<br>RPR form base =132; Topspeed base =122
Howle Hill         141(+9)<br>Nawamees        143(+11)<br>Dad’s Elect        141(+9)<br>Prince Among Men   139(+7)<br>Teme Valley        140(+8)<br>Tugeonev         ???(no hurdles form)<br>Maceo            141(+9)<br>Turn of Phrase      141(+9)
Nawamees who is top-rated, but hasn’t run over hurdles for 152 days is only 2 points clear of several others and therefore doesn’t qualify as a bet.
(Edited by Artemis at 10:22 am on Oct. 13, 2004)<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 9:27 am on Oct. 14, 2004)
A fairly long list of qualifying selections today:
Newm  1.40 Desert Chief 109(+17)  10pts win unpl<br>       2.15 Solo Flight 126(+15)  20pts ew unpl<br>       4.00 Ringmoor Down 132(+15) 20pts ew 2nd 7/1<br>       4.35 Atlantic Story 107(+16) 20pts ew 2nd 9/2<br>       5.10 Bishops Court 131(+14) 10pts ew unpl<br>Worc   3.00 Bunkum 138(+12) 20pts win 2nd<br>       4.10 Sardagna 128(+14) 20pts win 3rd<br>       4.45 Deep King 145(+18) 20pts win unpl<br>Taun   4.25 Palouse 140(+18) 30pts win won 11/8
Stakes 240pts loss 78pts
The jumps ratings are, on average, about 35 points(or lbs) larger than the flat ratings.
(Edited by Artemis at 7:10 pm on Oct. 14, 2004)
Today’s qualifiers:
Newm  1.40 Ingleton 111(+16)  20pts win won15/8<br>       4.00 Always Waining 118(+12) 20pts win <br> won 11/10<br>       5.05 Impersonator 110(+14)  20pts win unpl<br>Redc   2.00 Desert Imp 105(+13) 10pts win  <br> won 9/2     <br>       4.20 Russian Cafe 96(+14) 10pts win 2nd
Stakes 80pts profit 75pts
I realise there are many people to whom the idea of having six or more bets a day is anethema. There are also people at the other extreme who like to have an interest in nearly every race, particularly if they are going to the races.
It is fairly easy to narrow the qualifying list down to one/two/three/ or any number of bets by adding together the rating and the (+) figure that follows. This total gives the horse with the highest class and should represent the most reliable form, although not necessarily the best handicapped horse in the list.
Anyone wanting to bet in every race at a particular meeting would need to rate lower grade races (below grade D) where the form is less reliable. The method works just the same for these races, but I would not expect it to produce much profit (if any) over a period.<br>I think the main reasons for this are the inconsistencies of moderate horses, possible non-triers and a significantly bigger bookmaker’s over-round at the less important tracks.
(Edited by Artemis at 9:04 am on Oct. 16, 2004)
I,ve concentrated on Newmarket today, where the racing is of a very high standard.
Qualifying selections:
1.35  Maids Causeway 139(+19)  30pts win won 3/1
2.05  Polar Ben 142(+17) 20pts win unpl
2.45 Tungsten Strike 139( +25) 20pts ew unpl
3.25 Azamour 155(+19) 20pts win 3rd
4.00 Perfectperformance 144(+20) 20pts ew unpl
5.10 Gatwick 141 (+18) 20pts ew unpl
<br>Stakes 190pts Loss 70pts
(Edited by Artemis at 5:57 pm on Oct. 16, 2004)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.