- This topic has 336 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
LFAW … in my opinion, I don’t like to include any rating if I’m not sure what it means. Speed is perhaps the worst for this because speed figures seem to be very misleading. For example, they should be at their best on the new polytracks and not work at all on NH data ??
dave,<br>Have to go out, will reply later.
Today’s qualifiers:
Weth 1.25 Manbow 127(+15) 20pts win won 11/10<br>Chel  1.35 Vodka Bleu 159(+14) 20pts win won 11/8<br>      2.45 Monkerhostin 182(+15) 20pts win 3rd<br>Ling  12.25 Texas Gold 114(+14) 20pts win won 10/11<br>      2.05 Forzeen 102(+10) 20pts win won 9/4
Stakes 100pts Profit 93pts
(Edited by Artemis at 5:47 pm on Nov. 13, 2004)
dave,
I wouldn’t dismiss NH speed ratings because they can provide proof positive of a horse’s ability. It is impossible for a moderate horse to win a decent race in a relatively fast time, allowing for going and weight. Such a time franks the form better than any other peice of evidence based on the strength of the opposition, distances between finishers etc. Most NH races are not run at a pace fast enough to earn speed ratings, but those that are can provide vital clues to the abilities of the horses in that race. No-one rating races or handicapping horses professionally ignores the race time, even though on most occasions it tells them nothing.
I would tend to agree with that. For example, today’s time for Cheltenham would appear to be useful but only for the horses that finished within a few lengths of the winner in each race.
But horses that were pulled up, fell or brought down and then a subsequently run in a lower class will have no speed rating at all for the Cheltenham run. I think that this could be very misleading, especially if any of todays runners were meeting lesser beasts coming up in class. Ollie Magern would be one that I think will win next time out but finished a distance off the winner.
Well done today Artemis, I was expecting to see Cerium on your list. Rooster Booster tomorrow ??
dave,<br>Salut Saint Cloud (fell when going well 2 out) was just prefered to Cerium on the ratings, but they were too close to be nominated as a qualifier.
I haven’t seen the race, but the analysis in the RP says that Ollie Magern (btn 8l) ran a blinder at a distance probably too short for him. Next time over 3m+, perhaps? The time of the race was, as expected, very good and there should be some decent speed ratings from it.
There’s no answer to the fallers/pulled up/brought down problem. These horses are arguably unfairly penalised by lack of a speed rating for that race, certainly in my method. If the horse comes out again within the 60 day cut-off period I use, it might well be able to put that right. Horses that fall or are brought down when in close contention are often given a form rating for the race by the RP handicapper.
Today’s qualifiers:
Chel 1.35 Supreme Piper 148(+13) 10pts ew unpl<br>Font 1.10 Kaporolo 130(+13) 20pts win 2nd<br>Hayd 1.20 Investment Affair 131(+13) 10pts win won 3/1
Stakes 50pts loss 10pts<br>Weekly total<br>Stakes 500pts Profit 66pts<br>Running Total<br>Stakes 4,042pts Loss 52pts
(Edited by Artemis at 9:10 am on Nov. 15, 2004)
Only one qualifier today:
Leic 2.20 Raw Silk 139(+14) 20pts win 2nd
<br>Stakes 20pts Loss 20pts
I had a look at the Banded racing from Wolverhampton, just for interest. The ratings using this method come out with average top-rated of around 70, which is about 25 lbs(points) below the minimum qualifying score. Also, no horse on today’s card reached a score of +10 (Rating minus Form base). Top-rated horses were:
1.30 Amberlina 84 (+9)<br>2.00 Sinjaree 71(+4)<br>2.30 Larad 71(+9)<br>3.00 Repeat, Tojoneski = 63(+4)<br>3.30 Whinhill House 69(+7)<br>4.00 Ellovamul, Dial Square= 66(+6)<br>4.30 Mujkari 69(+9)
It might be interesting to see how this lot fare, but I wouldn’t risk it!
(Edited by Artemis at 4:06 pm on Nov. 15, 2004)
Decent AW racing at Lingfield where nearly every race has a RPR top-rated of 90+. Compare this with the offering at Towcester where only one race has a comparable standard(120+).
Qualifiers:
Newt 3.00 Colourful Life 146(+15) 20pts win won 4/5<br>Ling  12.50 Secret Place 110(+14) 10pts ew 3rd 7/1<br>      1.50 Blue Torpedo 103(+14) 20pts win 3rd<br>      2.20 Dandygrey Russet 92(+10) 10pts ew  won 8/1
Stakes 80pts profit 99pts  ÂÂÂ
(Edited by Artemis at 5:21 pm on Nov. 16, 2004)
Only one qualifier today:
Kemp 1.40 Champagne Harry 146(+15) 10pts win2nd
Stakes 10pts loss 10pts
After about two months, I am managing to break even at SP on the qualifying bets, which isn’t bad compared to the average tipster performance (SP) of a 10% loss. On  one of the other threads here, kersly’s pointers, which are also taken from the Racing Post, are showing a very decent profit of around 30pts in three months – excellent by any standards at SP.  I suppose that if I introduced a few filters (no odds on, etc), it might help the profitability, but I like the ‘scattergun’ approach because I find it more entertaining. Another factor is that most of the qualifying bets are available at better odds in the early markets and on the exchanges, which in my estimation would improve profitability by between 10 and 20 per cent. I think you will find that most of the tipping services that advertise in the racing press quote their returns to ‘advised prices’ which may not be available to everyone. If they quoted returns to SP, the picture might be different.<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 5:33 pm on Nov. 17, 2004)
Artemis,
You have done much better than I thought you would have when you first started .. well done !!
In my opinion if you can break even or make a small profit then you are going fine. Like you say Tipsters and the like, that advise to prices are basically just ‘at it’, working it all out to SP is much fairer.
Well Done !!
Thanks, dave.
The profitabilty of various tipsters who charge huge fees is shown at SP on Relayline. It tells its own story.
Today’s qualifiers:
Winc 2.30  Bearaway 130(+17) 20pts win unpl<br>MRas 2.10 Liberman 151(+14) 20pts win won 9/4<br>     2.40 Shining Lights 133 (+17) 20pts win unpl<br>     3.40 Cool Monty 132(+13) 20pts win NR
Stakes 60pts profit 5pts<br>
(Edited by Artemis at 5:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2004)
Artemis,
I concur with Dave. I have followed your topic thoughout and been impressed by your knowledge and ability to educate.
Keep up the good work.
Not only do tipsters fog the issue of prices, you have to pay for the privilege which means you need to be making large bets to cover the subscription.
Thanks, LFW.
What use is knowledge, if it is not shared. I am not a professional for reasons stated earlier on the thread, so I’m not giving any trade secrets away. I’ve learned a lot from others on this forum and a few other places such as Smartsig.co.uk, and I enjoy the banter.
Today’s qualifying bets:
Wolv 2.15 Golden Dixie 94(+10) 20pts win won 9/2<br>     3.25 Shannon Arms 97(+13) 10pts win2nd<br>Wind 2.40 Hors La Loi 144(+16) 20pts win NR<br>Exet  1.50 Monte Cinto 138(+15) 20pts win won 9/4<br>     2.25 Best Mate 190(+15) 20pts win<br>won 4/7
Stakes 70pts Profit 137pts
The highest rating possible using this method for a jump race is about 195, so Best Mate is nearly there. If Jim Culloty had been fit enough to take the ride, it would have nudged the rating up to 192.
At Wolverhampton, I see that Topspeed(Dave Edwards) has produced Racing Post Standard Times for the new surface. This means that speed ratings are now available for the meetings run since the course re-opened, and this should boost the ratings at future meetings to produce more qualifiers. As the minimum adjusted Racing Post Rating(RPR) I use is 83 (90 minus 7), the lowest Topspeed figure for a qualifier is 10lbs below this figure i.e. 73.  <br>
(Edited by Artemis at 5:22 pm on Nov. 19, 2004)
I think I’ve jumped the gun with the Wolverhampton standard times. I saw times in this morning’s RP, and thought they were for the new surface, but the editorial staff must have left the times in from the old surface. I’ll have to wait a bit longer.
In all fairness, to Tipsters there are some that are pretty good. I’ve said it before on this thread that unless you know what you are looking at then you will not really be able to apply that information in a proper manner. I reckon that Tipsters fall into three categories.
Category One.<br>Work out the form get an edge and then pass on selected information for a fee. These I’ve found to be a bit risky because they are usually in and out of form and unless you’ve got a large betting bank and a lot of patience you will find it hard to pay for the service and make a profit.
Category Two.<br>Tipsters that use ratings to come up with an edge calculated around a particular factor which affects strike rate.
Category Three<br>Chancers, these just put up tips that are no good. The same as Category One on a losing run.
The ratings you use on here would be rating tips Artemis obviously.
I thought I would post up a method of selecting winners that may be of interest you. You touched on this in your opening couple of posts as being a factor. This is the method employed by a certain news paper tipster. This rating uses the last two finishing positions from the horses last two runs regardless of how long ago they ran.
First of all you allocate points for each finishing position,
1 = 1<br>2 = 2<br>3 = 3
And so on until, L or 0 and that gets 10 points.
These score are then added together to give a final rating, a horse with form 1, 2, would have a rating of 1 + 2 = 3 and one with form of 0,7 would have a score of 17.
So the highest score is 20 (0,0) and the lowest 2 (1,1).
Obviously, you want the lowest number to have the most points, so what you do is invert it by deducting the form number from 21.
So, a horse finishing 1,1 would have a score of 2. Deduct 2 from 21 gives a rating of 19. The horse with a form of 0,7 get 17 … 21 – 17 = 4.
I then validated this against a results database, to see how accurate these figures actually were as a percentage. I have typed up a little table below that gives two figures, the first is this rating figure, as calculated above and the other is the actual percentage of wins for form figure ratings (based on about 17,500 races)
19..21<br>18..18<br>17..19<br>16..16<br>15..15<br>14..15<br>13..14<br>12..13<br>11..12<br>10..11<br>9..8<br>8..7<br>7..6<br>6..5<br>5..6<br>4..5<br>3..4<br>2..3<br>1..3
I was actually surprised how accurate these figures were when I had completed the exercise.
When I do my own ratings I use these as a base to start the ratings off and then factor these figure up or down accordingly.<br>
dave, I have to go out (Christmas shopping, I’m afraid: will reply later – might get back for tv racing)
Today’s qualifiers:
Ling 1.10 Latin Express 98(+16) 10pts win2nd<br>     3.45 Moayed 136(+21) 20pts ew2nd 7/2<br>Hunt 12.55 Three Days Reign 138(+22) 30pts winwon 1/1<br>     2.25 Kelly 136(+14) 10pts ewunpl<br>     3.00 Edredon Bleu 183(+14) 20pts winNR<br>Wind 2.05 Supreme Piper 134(+14) 20pts win won 11/8<br>     3.05 Colliers Court 135(+15) 20pts win won 11/10<br>Aint  2.55 Ebony Light 137(+13) 20pts win unpl
Stakes 160pts Profit 27pts
(Edited by Artemis at 5:39 pm on Nov. 20, 2004)
Yes, dave, this is something similar to the Fineform formula mentioned earlier in the thread. It is also very similar to an approach I have used from time to time, but haven’t really thought about for a long time.<br>I remember working in a pub (around 1980) and I didn’t have any time to study form or ratings, so I used a method quite similar to yours awarding points for last two runs, but took account of the no. of days since the last run and the form ratings in the Daily Mail. I didn’t do too badly and thought it a useful and quick method of picking horses to watch on TV.
I think the main weaknesses, as you probably realise, is the finishing position takes no account of the quality of the race or the winning distance/distance beaten. Nor does it take account of the number of runners in a race. To take a ridiculous example, a horse finishing 6th in a group 1(16 ran) beaten 3l, gets less points than a horse that finishes 2nd in a listed race with only 3 runners, and is beaten 10 lengths.
As you say, it’s a starting point, perhaps for people just starting out experimenting with systems and methods, or to get a very quick feel of a race. Its faults are part of the learning curve that most of us have moved along since we began.
With regard to tipsters, I think the vast majority of newspaper tipsters use ratings, probably Timeform or Superform because they provide a suitable service. I have also identified quite a few who advertise in the Racing Post who use methods very similar to the one used by me, although I think they might also get some information from a few stables and contacts. I think I know who the ‘chancers’ are, but cannot name anyone for obvious reasons.
IMO, the best tipsters are Henry Rix and Mel Collier, both ex-Pricewise from the Racing Post and both genuine blokes who put in a lot of time studying form and have good contacts. They usually go for decent prices, but the bookmakers know what they are putting up and you are lucky if you get on at the advised odds.<br>They do have Long Losing Runs like everyone else, but I think they show a decent profit at advised prices. Unfortunately this is eroded by the large fees they charge and the inability to get on at fancy prices.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.