Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
A good example of a horse out of form suddenly popping up at a price occurred yesterday at Folkestone ( 2/09/2012 ) in the 3:30, a 6 furlong handicap.
DRAWNFROMTHEPAST
won at 25/1 and yet its two previous runs were abysmal : 13th of 14 and 15th of 17. However, racing off a mark of 70, the 7yo gelding had previously won off a mark of 89 ( 86 if you take off the jockey’s 3lb allowance ) in July 2011. As such, with a good draw in stall 9, its win wasn’t utterly surprising, although in theory the horse had been well handicapped for some time without getting its head in front. Nevertheless, the lesson to be drawn from this example is that in trying to narrow down the field we would not have been able to rule out
DRAWNFROMTHEPAST
with any degree of confidence, not on recent form or fitness at any rate.
Hi sean.
MOUNT MAYDAY
is a non-runner in Folekstone’s 2:00. Do you have an alternative ?
Continuing the discussion on recent form and handicaps, you should also pay attention to a horse’s official rating. If the horse is out of form ( that’s to say doesn’t qualify on the three criteria above ), as a final check look to see if the horse is
on or below
a previous winning mark. If it is there’s a possibility its form will suddenly improve since its recent poor efforts may have been down to it having to race off of too high a mark. A single pound may not seem to make any difference, and it probably doesn’t, but
if the trainer
thinks his/her horse isn’t well handicapped they’re unlikely to train it to peak fitness until they believe it is.
Of those horses that manage to win when seemingly out of form, most are either racing again off of, or below, a previous winning rating, or racing off a career low mark.
After having established whether a given horse is likely to be fit or not the next step is to check out the horse’s recent form, that’s to say note how well the horse has run on its last two starts. If the horse’s recent form is poor, unless there are solid mitigating circumstances, we need to treat them with caution. If it also happens that their fitness is questionable, you can pretty much put a line through it.
Acceptable recent form ( last two runs, remember ) is as follows :
1. a win ;
2. a placed effort, 2nd or 3rd – 4th in 16+ handicaps. In small fields, use your discretion : 3rd of 4 by 7 lengths isn’t the same as 3rd of 12 by 7 lengths, for obvious reasons.
3. If the horse has failed to win or place, finishing within half-a-length per furlong of the winner in one of its last two starts. For example, if the horse’s last two runs were over five furlongs and it finished at least one of those races within 2 1/2 lengths of the winner.Looking at today’s racing ( 31/08/2012 ) I note that at Sandown in the 2:50 LIBERAL LADY’s last two runs were unplaced efforts : 8th of 8 and 4th of 8. However, on her last start she finished exactly 2 1/2 lenghts shy of the winner, so I would judge her recent form to be acceptable. There may be other reasons why her chances are slim, but recent form wouldn’t be one of them.
As with the advice on fitness, the above has particular force in handicaps. In Pattern races, claimers, sellers, conditions stakes and maidens, horses of varying ability often meet and a runner with poor recent form may still be able to outclass its rivals and win. In a handicap where all the runners have been weighted according to their ability it is harder to overcome your rivals if you’re not fully fit and in form.
It is also worth noting that
ROYAL BOX
was also making its debut for trainer Tony Carroll, another reason to think it could still run well despite its absence.
Some examples assessing race fitness form 27/82012.
In Chepstow’s 6:05 there were two horses who hadn’t raced within 28 days :
ROYAL BOX
( absent 63 days ) and
FORTY PROOF
( absent 34 days ). Looking at
ROYAL BOX
‘s form one could see that the horse had won
twice
off of a break of 29+ days, in June 2011 and August 2011. As such there was no reason not to think it couldn’t win despite being off-course for 63 days.
FORTY PROOF
, in contrast, hadn’t won following an absence, its two wins following breaks of 20 days and 25 days. I wouldn’t have considered betting him at any price having not raced for 34 days unless the horse had won its last start ( it hadn’t ) or was making its debut for a new trainer ( it wasn’t ). Don’t get me wrong, the horse could still win, but the probability is small.
When I begin looking at any race the first thing I like to establish is each horse’s likely level of fitness. There is a very simple reason for this. You wouldn’t expect Mo Farrah or Usain Bolt to give their best when carrying an injury or coming back to race following an injury with no time to train in between. They
might
still win if they totally outclass their field, but assuming they’re up against their peers they’re likely to struggle.
Horse racing is no different. We don’t want to be backing horses carrying injuries or lacking race fitness if we can avoid it. So how do we go about judging whether a given horse is fit or not ? From long experience I follow these guidelines :
1. If a horse has raced in the last 28 days ( 4 weeks ) you can assume it is fit enough to win.
2. If it hasn’t raced for 29 days or more then you must check to see if the horse has previously won off an absence of 29+ days or not. If it has, you can assume that the horse is capable of winning off a layoff and move on to considering other factors. If it hasn’t, you should probably put a line through the horse straight away except under the following circumstances :
a) The horse is having its first run for a new trainer ;
b) The horse won its last race before its absence.What about a horse that has only run a handful of times without winning ? As it failed to win on its debut you can tentatively assume it’s unlikely to win following an absence, but we’re on less firm ground here and you should maintain an open mind.
What about a horse that wins on its racecourse debut but then loses afterwards following absences of 29+ days ? Go with the evidence of its subsequent defeats following layoffs. It may simply have been more forward than its rivals if winning first-time-out as a 2yo, for example. That may not apply as forcefully to 3yos, but if the horse raced a further three times following a break and was beaten each time I’d assume it probably lacked the fitness to win.
While on the subject, look out for a certain type of horse that only seems to win on its first or second start of the turf season in March/April. They often go in at big prices having subsequently run up a series of losses. As an example, look at the results of
STAFF SERGEANT
.
So, in summary : If a horse has run within 28 days it is likely to be fit enough to do itself justice. If the horse hasn’t run for 29+ days its fitness is doubtful unless :
1. It has previously won off an absence of 29+ days ;
2. It is making its racecourse debut for a new trainer ( a change of stable can ofter revitalise a jaded horse );
3. It won its last race prior to its absence.If the horse doesn’t qualify on any of the above I will usually put a line through it, although it is fair to say that the guidelines I’ve given have particular force in
handicap
races. In Pattern races ( Group or listed ), or conditions races ( sellers, claimers, classified stakes ) since the levels of ability can vary greatly fitness isn’t always such a key factor. However, in handicaps
IT IS
.
There are a number of factors that need to be considered when studying form. I list below the most important which can impact on a horse’s chances of winning or losing :
1. Fitness ( includes "condition" )
2. Recent form
3. Official Rating
4. Class of race ( dictates which horses are eligible to compete according to ability )
5. Going ( state of the ground, i.e. soft or firmer )
6. Distance ( how far the race is run )
7. Course
8. Jockey
9. Trainer
10. Size of field
11. Time of Year
12. Headgear
13. Pace
14. Draw
15. The Betting MarketI’ll tackle each factor in the order they come above, starting with fitness.
Here are the a priori percentages of winning when guessing :
2 runners (50%)
3 runners (33%)
4 runners (25%)
5 runners (20%)
6 runners (16.7%)
7 runners (14.3%)
8 runners (12.5%)
9 runners (11.1%)
10 runners (10%)
11+ runners ( Less than 10% ).Don’t be fooled into thinking you can come out on top simply by backing any horse above the a priori percentages. For example, in a 6 runner race ( 16.7% ) backing anything with odds of 5/1 or better. Those horses are often big prices for a reason – they’re not as good as the other runners ! You should only back a horse at a price when you genuinely believe its chances of winning are better than its odds suggest.
Although it might seem a bit early to some to introduce the concept of "value" I think it is worthwhile broaching the subject since we’ve been discussing odds.
Going back to our coin tossing example, a value bet on guessing heads or tails would be any price above evens ( 50% ) from 21/20 ( 48% ) upwards. How so ? Well, we know that if we choose heads we have a 1 in 2 chance of being right. However, if somebody offered us odds of 2/1 they are assuming heads appears only 3 times in 10, when we know it is actually 5 times in 10. Thus in the long run for evry £5 we lose we make £7, a £2 profit. Kerchingggg !
How does this apply to racing ? Take a two-runner race in which both horses hold equal claims. If the bookies offered 4/6 about horse A and 6/4 against horse B you would simply back horse B. Knowing that both horses have an equal chance ( 50% ) you recognise that the bookies have overestimated tha chances of A and underestimated the chances of B, so you back B and in the long run make a tidy profit of 20p on the pound.
Obviously, bookies rarely make such mistakes, but take the example of a four-runner race in which horse C and D are so bad they can be ruled out, leaving just A and B as contenders. On your form study it is quite possible you believe B to have an edge over A, albeit slight, yet A is made favourite at evens ( 50% ) and horse B made 11/10 second favourite ( 47.6% ). This is one of the best bets in racing : a two-runner race in which the bookies/betting public, for whatever reason, make the "wrong" horse favourite ( wrong according to you, of course ).
Perhaps the easiest way to think about value is this. If you fancy a horse and feel there is only one other horse that has any real chance of beating yours, odds of evens + are quite acceptable. If there are two dangers, now your looking at 2/1 or better ( you have a 1 in 3 chance of winning ); three dangers = 3/1, and so on. Once you perceive there to be more than three dangers you’d probably be best passing the race altogether.
It is equally important to know what value
isn’t
. Always bear in mind the
percentage
chance the odds suggest a horse has of winning. Many people believe that a horse they think should be 20/1 is great value at 50/1 ; not so. Why ? Simply because the horse only has a 6.1% chance of winning in the first place. The 50/1 odds say its chances are just 2% ; wrong to be sure, but the difference is just 4.2%. Now take the case of a horse you think should be evens which is actually 6/4. That represents a whopping 10% difference ( 50% as opposed to 40% chance ). That
is
value, despite the lower odds.
A similar error is made ny people who create their own odds line ( see just such a mistake on Racing Post tv ). They price a race up as follows :
Horse A 2/1
Horse B 9/4
Horse C 5/1
Horse D 8/1
Horse E 16/1
Horse F 33/1The bookies odds are as follows :
Horse A 15/8
Horse B 2/1
Horse C 4/1
Horse D 10/1
Horse E 12/1
Horse F 20/1Only horse D’s odds are better than those from the odds line, 10/1 as opposed to 8/1. Many now reason as follows : "horse D is value since I think it should be 8/1 ( 11.1% ) when it is actually 10/1 with the bookies ( 9.1% ); they have underestimated its chances. That will be my selection". WRONG ! Take another look at your odds line ! You believe that horses A, B and C have a combined chance of nearly 81% of winning this race, so why on earth would you then back horse D ?! In order for it to win it needs three horses to run below form – unlikely. Don’t make this mistake – many do.
To start with let’s move away from racing briefly to consider our chances of guessing whether a coin lands heads or tails. I think even those with the most basic grasp of mathematics would agree that our chances are fifty-fifty – ignoring the very rare occasions when the coin lands on its side, it will either land heads up or tails up. A 50% chance expressed in odds is evens. If somebody offered us odds of evens if we guess right
then in the long run
we would simply break even, making neither a profit nor a loss ( for every pound we staked, we would usually win an equal amount of times as we lost ). If they offered us 4/6 on we would make a loss while at 6/4 against we would make a profit. Of course, nobody would be stupid enough to offer 6/4 against, so we end up either accepting 4/6 on and going broke or evens and coming out, well, evens !
As such, betting on the spin of a coin is hardly likely to prove a particularly profitable venture since there’s nothing we can do to tip the odds in our favour. Racing is different though. Although our
a priori
odds of picking a winner are usually worse than guessing heads or tails on the spin of a coin, with a judicious study of form we can often tip the odds in our favour.
What do we mean by our
a priori
chances of winning ? Let’s assume we know nothing about racing and make our selections by sticking a pin in the paper. In a two-horse race we have one chance in two of the pin alighting on the winner. Our chances of winning are exactly the same as guessing heads or tails – 50%, or evens ( 50-50 ). What about a three-horse contest ? Now our chances drop to 33%, or 2/1 ( we have one chance in three ; for every one time our horse winns, it’ll lose twice, on average ). Our percentage chance falls again with four horses – now it is just 25%, one in four, or 3/1. Clearly, as the number of horses increases our chances of guessing the winner drop markedly. Given most horse races have at least eight runners, giving us just a 12.5% chance of guessing the winner, why would we wish to bet on a horse race as opposed to betting on red or black at roulette ?
The answer is that in most races only a handful of runners hold a realistic chance of winning, and if you can establish which horses those are you can increase your
a priori
chance of success.
Ideally, in a race with any number of runners, from two to forty, we would like to be able to narrow the field of possible winners down to just one. However, in most races there are at least two realistic contenders, and more likely three or four. Still, if you start off with 12 runners and manage to boil down the field to just four contenders, you’ve increased your percentage chances of winning from just 8.3% to 25% !
Given our
a priori
chances are greater in small field races, should we stick to betting in those contests ? Not necessarily. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with making selections in bigger field races as long as you remember this : in order to make betting worthwhile you have to rule out as many horses as possible, say nine in a twelve-runner race, leaving a short-list of three. The trouble with having to rule out so many runners is that there’s a greater chance of us making a mistake and ruling out the winner as we go. Arguably the same could happen in just a three-runner contest, but it is nevertheless less likely.
Still, the trouble with only ever betting in small field races is that as the size of the field decreases so do the odds, while the opposite is true in bigger field races. A winner in a four-runner race is less likely to return as much as one in a twelve runner contest.
What can we conclude from the above ?
1. Our chances of winning are better in small-field races but the odds are likely to be shorter. To profit from these races our stakes must usually be greater.
2. In bigger-field contests our chances of winning decrease so it is imperative we narrow the field down to the least number of possible winners as we can, ideally just the one, but most likely two to four. Any more than that and we’re starting to guess. Since the odds tend to be greater in these races we can hope to make decent profits with relatively small stakes, if we so wish. We also have the chance now of betting each-way, but more about that later.
Interesting result.
I’m wondering if I make too much of a horse not having won for a couple of years.
Of interest with the winner was its record on its seasonal debuts : 2yo = 7/9 ; 3yo = 1/9 ; 4yo = 2/7 ( btn a head ); 5yo = 1/11 . One to note first-time-out in 2013… !
Musselburgh 3:30 Difficult to rate with any real confidence. Settled on :
BORUG – C Obvious claims but softening ground a concern.
MULLINS WAY – C Rated to win and evidence of last two runs suggest he’ll appreciate a furlong further.
ORIENTAL SCOT – D Not impossible but record beyond a mile raises doubts.
MUFFIN MCLEAY – C Contender.
JUDICIOUS – D Fails on form but could improve on debut for Keith Dalgleish.
EUSTON SQUARE – D/E Handicap winner off 70 and 72 so not looking too well handicapped off 78 ( beaten LTO off 76 ). Two previous runs here inauspicious : 12th of 12 and 7th of 7. Record in turf handicaps of 73+ = 0047054374429966 ( 0-16 ).
MY SINGLE MALT – D/E Hard to assess. Debut for Julie Camacho ; yard not exactly firing of late. Still 4lb above its last winning mark and weak in the betting.
STAFF SERGEANT – D/E Hasn’t won for over two years.
LUCKY WINDMILL – D Trip likely too sharp.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE – E Last win in November 2009.
BOTHAM – E In form when last seen but doubtful in this grade off a rating of 72.
Tentative selection is 1 point each-way on
MULLINS WAY
who looks good value at around 12/1. Tricky contest though… .
Wel, make of that what you will !
The biggest priced of the three won and although I believed 5/1 was about its price at least it shows the folly of simply backing the "most likely winner", in this case PS, who ran 2nd at 11/4.
