- This topic has 180 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
25 Sep 2011, 17:13
Director of betting developement for RFC. In position since early Jan 2010. What are his achievements in his tasked area so far please
I posted this about two years ago concerning Nigel Roddis.
Now coming up for 4 years now. Still in position? What are his list of achievements please?You asked for examples, here are another two from Tuesday last 2/9/13:-
3.20 Foss Las McDELTA 20/1
McDelta was having only his 4th ever start and first handicap.
Green
as a cabbage on
debut over 1 mile
. But despite greeness put up a
better
rating than his next two starts at
7f and then 6f
. Badly
outpaced
each time.
McDelta Breeding: By Delta Sunrise (an unraced half-brother to Dewhurst winner Dashing Blade). Delta Sunrise is by by Caerleon, winner of French Derby (then 12f), 2nd Irish Derby and won International (10f). McDelta is the first foal of 7f and mile winner McNairobi. So McDelta is certainly no sprinter and always likely to do better at 1m and probably a bit further.
In the Ffos Las race you’re on about Woolfie; despite being back up to 1 mile – McDelta was pushed along around half-way and under pressure before the final furlong. So if he was like that at a mile – what do you think his chances were at shorter distances? Of course he was going to improve markedly on those 6 and 7f races Woolfie, and improve on the only other mile form too. Having now learnt what the game is all about since that debut.
You might not like connections running McDelta at distances they probably knew weren’t going to suit. But as long as the jockey was doing his best to win those races despite the distance (and there is no evidence Seb wasn’t) – then nobody did anthing wrong. What’s more, any punter can look at the form (including breeding) and identify horses likely to improve at a different trip/going or whatever.
Value Is EverythingA few more outliers from the weekend’s racing :
Redvers won 8/1 1.55 Ascot Saturday 7/9/13
These are perhaps the most difficult to explain from a longer list of 18 in total.
As Rob says Woolfie, Redvers is pretty consistent in these big handicaps. They suit his style of racing, often slowly away so out the back and therefore the jockey usually needs to hope they go fast enough early on to pick them up. Last time out 11th of 29 might seem dissapointing Woolfie. But again slowly away, then the field split in two with Redvers in the smaller group. Made up quite a bit of ground late on, just too far back to get in to it. Sometimes things go against you. First four that day
all
ridden fairly prominently where as Redvers dropped out for a late run.
On Saturday Redvers got away far better than usual and tracked leaders on the far side. Wish I’d studied the race because my Timeform form book commented about Redvers last start is "still high on the list for a good prize".
I am sure with your way of thinking Woolfie – you think Redvers was deliberately slowly away. But do you really think Richard Hughes would forego the chance of winning a big handicap/money just so that another jockey picks up the trophy/winnings next time? Horses are not machines.
Value Is EverythingA few more outliers from the weekend’s racing :
Cosmic Halo won 33/1 3.35 York Sunday 8/9/13These are perhaps the most difficult to explain from a longer list of 18 in total.
Cosmic Halo ran poorly in a couple of slowly run affairs. Cosmic Halo does not have much of a turn of foot.
Dropped out (in the right place) in a strongly run race, with a test of stamina at the trip Cosmic Halo came back to form.
Value Is EverythingA few more outliers from the weekend’s racing :
Confessional won 15/2 2.05 Haydock Saturday 7/9/13
These are perhaps the most difficult to explain from a longer list of 18 in total.
Confessional is a bit of a dog. Difficult to predict, but had come down almost a stone in the handicap. First start for 7 weeks last time out, so probably needed it and run easily excused.
Value Is EverythingA few more outliers from the weekend’s racing :
Cosmic Halo won 33/1 3.35 York Sunday 8/9/13
Redvers won 8/1 1.55 Ascot Saturday 7/9/13
Confessional won 15/2 2.05 Haydock Saturday 7/9/13
Storm Moon won 10/1 5.55 Thirsk Saturday 7/9/13These are perhaps the most difficult to explain from a longer list of 18 in total.
You had eight odds-on shots running on the Flat on Saturday. The only winner coming at lowly Wolverhampton. Loads of handicaps and plenty of short-priced favourites being turned over in conditions races in other words bookmaker heaven.
Yes, I noticed these, it’s the other side of the coin. No doubt they will win at bigger odds in time. The bookie welcomes inconsistency.
Woolf121,
Could it be there are more "triers" in races than you are willing to give credit to?
Perhaps this gives rise to the "inconsistencies" you mention?
Do Barcelona (football) win every game they play? NO
Does the fastest F1 car win every race? NOLikewise horse racing….it’s called sport and the variables are many.
Getting a horse physically fit and mentally tuned is one aspect, finding the right race conditions (going, trip, track) is another. Add in a slice of luck and you might be competitive in said race.
To suggest its point, click, bingo is well off the mark for the vast majority of races run in the UK.
You had eight odds-on shots running on the Flat on Saturday. The only winner coming at lowly Wolverhampton. Loads of handicaps and plenty of short-priced favourites being turned over in conditions races in other words bookmaker heaven.
Yes, I noticed these, it’s the other side of the coin. No doubt they will win at bigger odds in time. The bookie welcomes inconsistency.
You can not judge such things by one days racing Stilvi/Woolfie.
If odds-on and short priced horses are generally not being allowed to run on their own merits… Then answer this question:
Why is it that
over all
(taking in to account bookmakers mark ups) – each price wins at or very close to the percentage of races each price suggests it should?
Value Is EverythingWoolf121,
Could it be there are more "triers" in races than you are willing to give credit to?
Perhaps this gives rise to the "inconsistencies" you mention?
Do Barcelona (football) win every game they play? NO
Does the fastest F1 car win every race? NOLikewise horse racing….it’s called sport and the variables are many.
Getting a horse physically fit and mentally tuned is one aspect, finding the right race conditions (going, trip, track) is another. Add in a slice of luck and you might be competitive in said race.
To suggest its point, click, bingo is well off the mark for the vast majority of races run in the UK.
I would hope there were more triers than non-triers in any given race though I occasionally have cause to doubt that.
The advent of the exchanges heralded a change and I know I am not alone in expressing amazement at race outcomes these days despite Ginger and Rob’s valiant efforts to explain.
It would be a good exercise for race fans to analyse races closely to understand why 20/1 shots frequently romp home like champions having previously shown little in race after race.
Woolf et al
There’s a ‘no form’ special running at Beverley in the 5.40 in the shape of
Mister Mannanan
. It’s been running fair to middling in competitive sprint handicaps this season with no suggestion that it hasn’t been trying, just in case you should ask, but crucially back to below its last winning mark. That mark was from a handicap over this course and distance on similar ground to today back in April, and this can be a specialists’ course. Keiron Fallon takes the ride here.
The move for Mister Manannan to 13/2 though may just present some value at the front of the market with progressive Bondi Beach Boy looking a backable price for an 8 runner race at around 100/30.
There does seem to be a fundamental lack of understanding by some here of how odds work. That being said, I wouldn’t have thought that’s unusual across the whole spectrum, though slightly surprising amongst some who profess to know something about the game.
Most horses in handicaps will probably lose. Your average SP 2/1 will average a shade over 2 losses for every 1 win over a period of time. 5/1 chances will win somewhere in the region of 1 in 7 races and, despite the suggestion of some on here, that sort of ration regularly holds up.
20/1 are unlikely to win BUT they will win about 1 in evey 30 races. That’s the way odds work. Just because a horse is 20/1 doesn’t mean it shoudln’t win, just that it is unlikely to win.
A 4/6 chance is likley to win BUT will lose 4 times in 10 if the odds are accurate. It’s not inconceivable for a few such chances to lose in a row. Not probable, but possible. Sometimes possibles overcome probables.
It’s reasonable to say that an outsider might be ranked as any starting at odds above the blind chance odds by size of field, i.e., over 5/1 in a 6-runner field, over 9/1 in a 10-runner field and over 14/1 in 15-runner field. By my quick reckoning from Friday to the end of yesterday in UK racing there were 118 races of which only 20 were won by horses at odds greater than blind chance. I’d say that was slightly on the low side and the outsiders really ought to pull their fingers out a bit! Bear in mind that at a few meetings over that period there was heavy rain which caused a significant change in going. It’s these circumstances that I would expect to result in more outsiders winning.
My most successful periods of betting in recent years have been when covering a number of longer priced horses in a race. It’s not always easy to tie down a particuar long-shot, but some races just have the look of a surprise about them and the trick is to coverenough options to get a regular return.
The average backers method is rather haphazard anyway and there in lies their problem. Those who care about making a profit will seek to improve their betting strategy. Those who don’t try to improve or don’t care to improve will flail away and continue to lose, blaming all but themselves for lack of success.
It really isn’t that difficult if you care to make the effort, and sometimes only a little effort is needed. A tale from a few years back when we were on holiday and visited Redcar races with my Mum. She had a 9/1 winner in one race and I assuemd it was just a lucky guess. " No,", said Mum, "I noticed the comment said it weakened over a mile last time and had won over 7 furlnogs before that. This was 7 furlong race so it seemed back to its best distance!" That’s my mum, I thought! She even beat SP.
Appliication of common sense doesn’t guarantee a profit, but it does at least mean losing less and the experience of racing will be less painful. Alternatively you could blame the invisible bogeyman for lack of success…
Rob
You can not judge such things by one days racing Stilvi/Woolfie.
If odds-on and short priced horses are generally not being allowed to run on their own merits… Then answer this question:
Why is it that
over all
(taking in to account bookmakers mark ups) – each price wins at or very close to the percentage of races each price suggests it should?
Still waiting for an answer.
Value Is EverythingYou can not judge such things by one days racing Stilvi/Woolfie.
If odds-on and short priced horses are generally not being allowed to run on their own merits… Then answer this question:
Why is it that
over all
(taking in to account bookmakers mark ups) – each price wins at or very close to the percentage of races each price suggests it should?
Still waiting for an answer.
Where is that information available? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
A starter for 10…
from the Press Challenge TAble on the RP website.
The record of favourites this year is:
2656-7195 Return on Outlay 94.65%
and this month
89-230 1pt Level Stake Return -1.59 Return On Outlay 99.30%
If anything that suggests that results over the last ten days have been in favour of the backer compared to the norm.
An overall annual return losing a shade over 5% suggests a market which is generally predictive of the result. The betting market is a negative expectation market, but it doesn’t look excessively negative at this time.
I note from the RP Nap Table that Doug Moscrop is currently showing a profit of 57.85pts to a 1pt level stake over the year. That is impressive, but having had the pleasure of briefly chatting to and doing much listening to Doug Moscrop at Sedgefield one day it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. In excess of 20% profit from a single selection per day over 9 months is solid selecting, and even more so given that the selections are in the public domain.
Rob
Where is that information available? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
Here:
http://adrianmassey.no-ip.org/web1/odd/index.php
The columns ‘SP Decimal Odds’ and ‘True Decimal Win Odds’ are the one’s relating to Ginger’s point
Also apropos of Rob’s post above see:
Thanks for that Drone, knew I’d seen it somewhere.
As you can see Woolfie/Stilvi, each price’s percentage strike rate is at (or near) the percentage you could expect. Therefore, any thoughts of significant numbers of short priced horses being not allowed to run on their merits… is clearly WRONG.
Value Is EverythingAs you can see Woolfie/Stilvi, each price’s percentage strike rate is at (or near) the percentage you could expect. Therefore, any thoughts of significant numbers of short priced horses being not allowed to run on their merits… is clearly WRONG.
In case anyone wonders whether matters have changed since Adrian Massey’s stats finished in 2010 here’s a selection of his stats for NH Handicaps for 2000 – 10
1-1
44.3%
2-1
29.4%
3-1
22.1%
5-1
14.2%
8-1
9.2%
12-1
6.6%
and Computer Timeform’s for 1/1/11 – present
1-1 51.39%
2/1 28.29%
3/1 21.47%
5/1 14.62%
8/1 8.78%
12/1 6.24%
Small sample hence the aberrant profit you would have had backing Even money chances in NH handicaps since 2011 but all the rest ‘as expected’
I don’t have a Flat database
As you can see Woolfie/Stilvi, each price’s percentage strike rate is at (or near) the percentage you could expect. Therefore, any thoughts of significant numbers of short priced horses being not allowed to run on their merits… is clearly WRONG.
In case anyone wonders whether matters have changed since Adrian Massey’s stats finished in 2010 here’s a selection of his stats for NH Handicaps for 2000 – 10
1-1
44.3%
(50%)
2-1
29.4%
(33.3%)
3-1
22.1%
(25%)
5-1
14.2%
(16.7%)
8-1
9.2%
(11.1%)
12-1
6.6%
(7.7%)
and Computer Timeform’s for 1/1/11 – present
1-1 51.39% (50%)
2/1 28.29% (33.3%)
3/1 21.47% (25%)
5/1 14.62% (16.7%)
8/1 8.78% (11.1%)
12/1 6.24% (7.7%)
Small sample hence the aberrant profit you would have had backing Even money chances in NH handicaps since 2011 but all the rest ‘as expected’
I don’t have a Flat database
I’ve put in the percentages needed at each price to break even (in brackets) to help people compare.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.