Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Guys, we’re milling around at the start a bit (going round in circles).
I’ve conceded value plays a part in my selections, but a secondary part. A value-seeker primarily approaches a race looking for value and disregards their personal fancy to the extent of backing horses they don’t think will win just because they’re value. My approach is to rate/predict each horse to seek the winner then back it whatever the price if it’s clear top rated. Even if I feel dubious about its chances on gut instinct/reflection, e.g. Going Concern yesterday, I can’t go against the figures I produce. When there is little between 2 or more horses on my figures I step back, take a quick overview and try to find a secondary reason to split them. One of the secondary reasons is price. If I can’t split 2 any other way and only wish to back 1 (discipline, minimises risk!) it’s common sense to go for the bigger-priced horse. With the 6 fancies I put up yesterday I distinguished with each whether they were clear top rated or choices made on a secondary basis.
The discovery that my SR is similar at various odds is, I have to concede, surprising. But it just is. We will see if it continues. As it stands the fact that my SR is NO BETTER at shorter prices means virtually all the profit comes at 10/1+. That’s what the stats say.
Thanks Judge, I was fortunately able to take early retirement. Have always enjoyed a flutter but much, much more just been a fan of the Jumps. Watching RUK daily I naturally became greater intrigued and was motivated to look at form more seriously to pick more winners. Still not betting much. It seemed to be going well so I started to keep a record of all picks. WAS going well so started backing all my selections in Sept ’15.
Time spent studying mushroomed, yes it’s becoming slightly obsessive! It now irritates me to watch a race without having analysed it. Never enough hours in the day, sometimes have to compromise and take a pull. Took one look at Bangor today and thought NO! Will spend Fri & Sat going through 5 Boxing Day meetings!
Probably. Reason being ATR has a much higher proportion of lower class British Jumps action and lower rated horses are generally the least reliable. Personally I dislike ATR live coverage and only use it to watch replays, mainly of Irish heats. In contrast I find RUK provides by far the best coverage by any broadcaster of any sport.
That was a good notion Ginger, however, COK you are close enough. Gay Navarree, 1962 & 63 raced in the GN 64 – 66 as Pontin-Go. Scandalous that the authorities allowed this! Over to you COK.
Well, as I hoped, this thread is providing an interesting discussion on fancy vs value! When I decided to compile the statistics I had only a vague idea of what story they would tell. When I posted them I wasn’t sure of what folk would make of my strike rate at various prices. It seems to support a fancy-based approach as a viable alternative to a value-based one. The SRs also seem to have caused some disquiet!
Judge, I appear to be one of the few who post a photo of themselves on here! Re my original points 3) & 5): why is backing at 2/1 or shorter expected to be a loss leader? Because I bet level stakes and my SR is consistent at all prices as opposed to being a higher one the shorter the price which it would need to be to make a profit on the short ones. And the main tenet of my argument is it’s not all about value, it’s all about my fancy/selection firstly, the odds compiled by somebody else is a secondary factor. Again, nobody actually knows what chance any horse has of winning, it’s all opinion – ‘nobody’ includes the odds compilers so why use their opinion as a basis for your approach? (One reason could be that a punter can never be sure their horse will win so seeks security, seeks a confidence bolster, by selecting to back a shortish-priced horse because, by definition, the odds compilers and a large number of fellow punters have belief it will win). So my initial approach is, by study and analysis, to try to find the horse I think will win and not be swayed from that belief by its price. The consistency of my SR at various odds validates that approach. So it’s in that way that the price is irrelevant (except in the secondary splitting of tight calls)! And the SR consistency also indicates I’m correct to back at level stakes, rather than lumping disproportionately on horses somebody else has made a shortish price, because the success ratio of my fancies is not better when they happen to be shortish (despite the fact, by definition, a lot of other people must also fancy the horse).
Also Judge, on average I spend about 11 hours per day studying (it isn’t genius, mad or otherwise, it’s bloody hard work and method). Much depends on the number of Jumps meetings on RUK, on the number of runners. It’s often impossible to cover all cards and sometimes I have to do a rush job. But on an average 6 race card (I don’t even watch Bumpers) I’ll take 6 or 7 hours.
I will try to explain my workings on the Ludlow 12.35 for River Wylde & Brahms De Clermont to give you a snapshot of the type of thing I do with all runners. They were all at 11-2 so I won’t add on the 12 here. I use the Racing Post lifetime form & ratings as a basis. I try to predict the figure each runner will achieve (then adjust when weights are unequal). I notice collateral form but usually dismiss it if it contradicts my predicted ratings because each race/set of circumstances is unique.
RW – ex pointer but enough speed to win by 23L on same going as today (G to S) in a NHF at Warwick, progressing from first Bumper and doing 120. Last time’s following effort in a higher class (C3) NHF at Chelt, behind BDC, too bad to be his true running for whatever reason (seems was breathing problem) so ignored. Now, I reason that a 2m Hurdle is a stiffer test than a 2m NHF so if horse appears to stay well I give 5 of improvement going into its first H (10 if it’s a 2 1/2m H) so 120 becomes 125. Mild worries re sharpness of Lud compared to Warwick and that his best form came in the lowest class of NHF he ran in, so I express that as 125(?). (?) = -5. So 120.
BDC – more complicated to explain! Did 119 in C5 NHF on Good at Taun in April ’16, winning easily. Kept on well (so also has stamina & speed) won by Nk in Oct C3 NHF Chelt under Stan Sheppard, claiming 7, for 122. Now, the RP calculate their ratings without applying the claim (although they confusingly show the actual weight carried (11-0)). In this race BDC should’ve carried 11-7, the 2nd did carry (no claimer) 10-7, winning distance: Nk, so they rated BDC 122 & the 2nd 107. That assumes BDC’s jockey is a poor rider and the 7 he took off is worthless. However, I try to assess every claimer’s ability (& a few are very poor!) So to Stan, in the last 5 seasons he is 3 from 12, 25% in NHFs and has a great conversion rate of 3 wins to 0 2nds when in with a chance of winning. A small sample of NHFs but he is also above 10% & has more 1sts than 2nds in H’s & C’s. If he were average I would say that of the 7 he claimed in the Chelt race he was effectively taking 4 off BDC’s back. Stan is above average, especially in NHFs (granted it’s a small sample) in addition to which I personally rate him so I will say he effectively took 6 off the horse’s back. Therefore, in the Chelt race, where the 122 is given on the basis the horse carried 11-7, I say BDC effectively carried 11-1. I knock off 6 making the rating 116, a respectable run up 2 classes, probably similar to the Taunton run (C5, 119) when related to today’s ordinary C4 Maiden but no real improvement either on its debut run at Taun or for the benefit of/maturing process between seasons, and the trainer’s horses were fully fit to do themselves justice on reappearance in October. In November BDC ran in a C1 L NHF, also at Chelt, on Soft, Stan S unable to claim, no threat and an RPR of 105. So 119 & 105, a 14 differential, was this due to BDC being unable to handle the (further) rise in class, to the Soft ground, or to a combination of those two things? No way of knowing, possibly -7 due to each factor. The horse is certainly not progressing but today’s race is back well down in class so I cannot deduct 7 for class, still 119. Now, the horse should stay (won Chelt 16.5f) & have the speed (won Taun on Gd) for today’s conditions so deserves the 5 going into first Hurdle, 124. However, G to S is a concern, possibly at least -7 at Chelt in Nov due to it being Soft compared to Gd and today’s ground is in between, could impact -3 to -5. So the 124 has to have a (?), thus 124(?). (?) = -5. So 119.
(Thankfully it’s much quicker to do all this than to explain it). You can see my weight adjusted ratings for these 2 horses and others in one of my earlier posts along with the secondary reasoning required to separate horses and decide which to back in such a tight call and ‘unpredictable’ type of race.
As alluded to below the race was not as tight as expected and I got a lot of these unexposed horses wrong but my methods still produced the winner, even if somewhat fortuitously.
Ginger, The Gun, Nathan. Odds compilers are sometimes misguided in their judgement I reckon, perhaps because they have a herd mentality. I will have to open a DLAP thread of 10/1+ bets, shouldn’t be a risk as I’m only backing in £10 units and it’s well spread around. It’s going to be hard/impossible to have time to write up a detailed analysis (see above!), however, and I always try to get Best Odds Guaranteed so some bets that drift from under 10/1 will inevitably not be included whereas those that shorten will be in the thread at bigger prices taken so it’s all going to be a bit arbitrary, still that would be the case whatever the cut off price and it would be a bit tedious to put up every selection, especially as the contentious point is my 10/1+ SR/profit.
The Jugopolist, well it had won twice over Hurdles, albeit when the old King was on the throne! I did not come to the opinion he is ungenuine just that, although not very good, he could produce a performance at the weights to beat an uninspiring lot. Felt confident he would at worse run on into a place, didn’t expect him to dominate and win in commanding style, though he was clear top rated.
As for today, well a 33% SR :) A profit of 15 on a stake of 70, now only -68.23 off my season high! Typical kind of day really. Didn’t expect River Wylde to win so well, your Melrose Boy, Ginger, ran better than I expeced as did Monbeg Oscar but a couple notably disappointed. BDC can only be backed on Good. Got the race pretty wrong how it panned out but managed to find the winner. Better to be lucky than good! Kilcrea Vale I got very right. Off target in the third though Going Concern ran ok. Luck evened out in the Mares as I’m certain Brillare Momento would have won – that’s Jumps for you! Embarrassing disaster in the 3m Chase, King Of The Wolds never went a yard, sometimes happens with any horse. Close in the last Hurdle, which I rushed a bit, hard to separate Vocaliser, Un Prophete & Goal, felt UP had more scope. A day quite close to being better but can’t complain.
The Jugopolist was also clear Racing Post top rated, had put up consistent figures several times in better company, the trainer/jockey had had a winner the previous week and there were big question marks over all the other runners.
I am seriously considering opening a thread in Daily Lays & Plays for the 10/1+ selections. Meanwhile, finishing off Ludlow today:
2.10 Brillare Momento 3/1 clear top rated.
2.40 9 out of 10 for difficulty but plumped for narrow top rated King Of The Wolds E/W 18/1.
3.10 Very tight, taken a shot on Un Prophete 7/2.One day (today) or one week doesn’t prove anything but the strike rates are true. Perhaps the point is that price has far less bearing on SR than you all think.
A good working example of a tight call is the first at Ludlow tomorrow. I have the following predicted adjusted performance ratings: River Wylde 132, Brahms De Clermont 131, Woodfort 128, Melrose Boy & Uncle Percy 124. My ratings are likely to be relatively low on the scale of accuracy because the majority of the field are lightly raced and hurdles debutantes. Therefore, I considered my top 3 for my bet (whereas if they were experienced handicappers I would have considered only the top 2). However, I can find no angle on knowing how any of the 3 will take to hurdles and, based on my figures, Woodfort would have to get it right and rely on both the others not to so I dismissed him (although he’s 11/1, much the bigger price of the 3). In this race I can find no other determinate than price to separate BDC (11/10) & RW (4/1) so RW becomes my fancy and I backed him. RW happens to be rated 1 higher than BDC but in this type of and tight a race I would have backed BDC if it were the bigger price of the 2. (And, in this perhaps not very good example if RW is a non runner then Woodfort would have to get it right and only need 1 horse (BDC) to get it wrong so would come back into play, and as the bigger price of the 2 be backed (despite being rated 3 lower because of the difficulty in rating this type of race accurately)).
If I lose I’m -10, big deal, and so onto the 1.05…
I wonder what your approach would be? I’m not sure how you weigh up a race but if similarly and if using my figures I’m guessing you would back Woodfort with maybe a saver on RW – possible chance of a greater return but risking more outlay as we both watch BDC or something else romp home!
You won’t find me having a bet in a maiden hurdle, GM.
Not only is there no knowing how they jump, there’s also River Wylde’s breathing problem to consider.
If forcing me in to a bet there are two alternatives.
One is backing Melrose Boy @ 3/1 (bet365) and save on BDC 11/10, but there is a better bet.
With half the field @ 50/1+ and only three below 14/1 it’s a race ideal for each way betting. So instead, I’ll go for Melrose Boy each way @ 3/1.That’s cautious!
Breathing problem? Last time? They’ve had 2 months to fix it.
Melrose Boy, down 4f & on less testing ground surely won’t be quick enough however ridden.
BDC, no claimer, seems very best on Good.
Wonderful how a Ludlow maiden can be so fascinating :)
You have some unbelievable results there GM.
Freakish results can skew profits in a small sample.
eg You’ve got a strike rate on 10/1 shots that most TRFers would be glad of on their 6/4 shots… strike rate on 12/1 shots most TRFers would be glad of with 4/1 shots etc. All probably because it’s a small sample. As Cav rightly says, you can not expect a lot of those strike rates to continue. It’s obviously encouraging to have stats like that, but really needs thousands of bets to tell.Although profits and losses may be correct, 16/1+ results look a bit strange where placed each way bets are included as “wins”.
In my experience, can not ever remember working out something that imo has the best chance – or even close to best chance – where it’s been available @ 12/1+. It appears to me your best results have come when allowing “value” to sneak in to your thoughts/analysis.
Yes, I suppose adding last season to this I must’ve had about 1750 bets so it will be interesting to see what the strike rates look like in a few years time. The thing is I’m learning all the time and becoming ever more familiar with the form book so logically I should improve! My weaknesses are a dislike of horses having second quick runs and sometimes misjudging stableform.
I wasn’t sure how to count the E/W bets. Technically the SR is correct but I guess it would be 25% if I had counted Win and Place separately doubling the total bets from 18 to 36.
Honestly Ginger many of the 12/1+ have been my top rated, e.g. The Jugopolist (16/1) at Huntingdon, Dec 4.
We’ll see what happens. High for this season was +1295.16 on Dec 10, -83.23 since! However, fell up to 250 off my high at times last season, just carried on the same and before long reached a new high. :)
Ask a simple question! Basically yes Ginger. The horse I think will win is my fancy, my selection, the one I believe has the best chance. I arrive at which horse I think has the best chance by trying to predict in a figure how each horse in the race will run. When that produces a clear outcome I back the top rated regardless of its price and regardless of whether I might think the price is stingy or generous.
Naturally in a number of races the figures are very tight so in the vast majority of those races I just have to make a decision and one determinate is which horse is the bigger price. But again whether I think that price is stingy or generous is immaterial. Occasionally I will back 2 horses I cannot separate, especially if I have them clear of the rest, but only if they are both about 7/1+. In the huge field handicaps at Cheltenham, Aintree, etc. I may back 3 or 4 especially when 5 or 6 places are offered.
A good working example of a tight call is the first at Ludlow tomorrow. I have the following predicted adjusted performance ratings: River Wylde 132, Brahms De Clermont 131, Woodfort 128, Melrose Boy & Uncle Percy 124. My ratings are likely to be relatively low on the scale of accuracy because the majority of the field are lightly raced and hurdles debutantes. Therefore, I considered my top 3 for my bet (whereas if they were experienced handicappers I would have considered only the top 2). However, I can find no angle on knowing how any of the 3 will take to hurdles and, based on my figures, Woodfort would have to get it right and rely on both the others not to so I dismissed him (although he’s 11/1, much the bigger price of the 3). In this race I can find no other determinate than price to separate BDC (11/10) & RW (4/1) so RW becomes my fancy and I backed him. RW happens to be rated 1 higher than BDC but in this type of and tight a race I would have backed BDC if it were the bigger price of the 2. (And, in this perhaps not very good example if RW is a non runner then Woodfort would have to get it right and only need 1 horse (BDC) to get it wrong so would come back into play, and as the bigger price of the 2 be backed (despite being rated 3 lower because of the difficulty in rating this type of race accurately)).
If I lose I’m -10, big deal, and so onto the 1.05…
I wonder what your approach would be? I’m not sure how you weigh up a race but if similarly and if using my figures I’m guessing you would back Woodfort with maybe a saver on RW – possible chance of a greater return but risking more outlay as we both watch BDC or something else romp home!
P.S. In the 1.05 my figures come out as: Kilcrea Vale 166, Westren Warrior 155, Zamdy Man 147… So I immediately backed my clear fancy KV at 5/2 (and would’ve backed it at 2/5!) In the 1.35 the prediction is: Going Concern 156, Sizing Platinum 152, Festive Affair 151, Gardefort 151j (j = fairly serious concern re jumping), Baltimore Rock 149… So again I simply back GC whatever the price, I got 15/2. If it becomes a non I’ll take FA over SP because in a tight call it is double the price.
I respect your opinion Cavelino but what is an extended period of time? I have managed it for a season and a half which must be about 150-175 bets.
Ok let’s try this one which hopefully will prove a bit easier.
What were the monikers applied to the only horse to run in the National under two different names?
What a shame about the fog today, it was hard to enjoy any of the races. The last at Haydock was the one that definitely should not have been run. The winning jockey admits that only when catching site of the wings could he tell a hurdle was coming up. Normally that limited a degree of visibility would be deemed too dangerous. Evidently the race was seen by the tracking vehicle and above board. Evidently there was a steward at the winning post. Evidently there was 1/2 length between 1st & 2nd.
Why was it run? Perhaps partly for financial reasons and partly for the benefit of owners & trainers, they having brought their horses to run. But what enjoyment could they have derived, what could they have learned about their horses from seeing nil? And for those not connected, whether professionals, avid followers or casual observers it was entirely unsatisfactory, investment of one kind or another in a ‘product’ that didn’t materialise.
If you excuse the pun, what image did running this give of racing!
Well I have backed 2 horses to win, Quick Jack (14/1) who is consistent & has a talented 7lb claimer aboard and Consul De Thaix (9/1) who will come on from reappearance & benefit from test ensured by certain strong pace.
Main dangers: Brain Power but Nicky favours CDT & BP has to back up improved mental attitude & better jumping shown at Sandown; Golden Spear, has become ridiculously short and HAS to find 8lbs of improvement (as on Flat) to justify price. The Flat improvement has to a degree come when upped in trip so may need further than 15.5 to fully replicate over hurdles – may find some but that wouldn’t give him a clear edge and I don’t rate the claimer on board.
Sternrubin & Waxie’s Dargle look pretty solid.
Ones I don’t fancy: Who Dares Wins, form of last time overrated; Modus, don’t see where he will find enough improvement; Meet The Legend, similar to Modus even though this a target & trainer has won similar events with Superb Story & North Hill Harvey so risky to oppose; Jolly’s Cracked It needs to improve 8lbs after a years absence & trainer’s horses have been coming on for a run.
I have backed 2 to win. First choice is Eduard who should come back to best following run after long absence & benefit from up in trip. Secondly Irish Saint, similar profile, I wasn’t sure re trip but trainer must be as he says this was the target. Main danger Go Conquer but he is up 2 classes whereas IS has performed well loads of times at a higher level & is 3 points bigger. Respected is Minella Daddy (but also big class rise). I then prefer Le Mercurey to Fourth Act as the latter’s jumping is unreliable. Another Hero is also up in class & may have a later target. Not sure what the plans are for TDN (another tilt at GN?) but think needs more of a test anyway. Hard to fancy any of the others for various reasons.
Hard to see past the favourite by a comfortable 6 or 7 lengths. LR would be second choice but I’m concerned about the stableform. My latest theory on Un Temps is that he only runs near best after the turn of the year. Think the French-trained horse will not translate his best form on British debut/G to S. Ballyoptic is more likely to harm his chances by setting a strong pace than improve for it – lead will be contested & Dickie can overdo it at times. RDS has earned performance ratings very similar to those in identical preparation last year, only THIS race will indicate whether he’s deteriorated, so may be 2nd. PZ looks good for a place.
Yes, well done Buckers.
In 1839 an 8yo True Blue was 4th (prominent, faded somewhat, inherited a place at last).
In 1873 a 7yo True Blue Fell (tailed off by WJ, exhausted when fell at 2nd fence (Fan) on 2nd circuit).
In 1901 a 10yo True Blue Fell (6th at WJ. Still travelling well when snow balled in feet & fell 27th (OD). Broke back. Dead).
In 1937 a 9yo True Blue Fell (towards rear until fell 2nd).
(True Blue is the opening track of Stewart’s 1972 LP Never A Dull Moment).
The names each carried by 3 different horses in GNs are Columbine, Pioneer & St George.
Over to you Buckers.
