GENERAL RACING CHIT CHAT

[The Equaliser]

1 hour ago, Trotter said:

I'm not really a fan of those kind of stats

My view is always that those 5 years worth of favourites that the stats are based on are not running in the 6.40 at Kempton tonight !

But overall I think that about roughly a third of favourites ? ....... which means two-thirds don't

The trick is to find the favourites that won't win ....... the shorter the odds the better. That's where your skill comes in ...... finding those horses that are favourites but maybe shouldn't be because there's something in their form or run style or in todays conditions which makes you think they won't win

Have you ever worked through Racecourse Specialist by Jon Burgess (of False Favourites fame); I have an old copy which runs to 156 pages long.  Not sure whether to plough through it or not?

[Xtc12]

Can anyone give me favourite stats for 6 runner fields or less ?

If they could be broken down to the number of runners would be better again. i.e. favourites 6 runners, 5 runners so on.

Thanks

[Valiant Thor]

16 minutes ago, Xtc12 said:

Can anyone give me favourite stats for 6 runner fields or less ?

If they could be broken down to the number of runners would be better again. i.e. favourites 6 runners, 5 runners so on.

Thanks

HERE

[Trotter]

17 minutes ago, The Equaliser said:

Have you ever worked through Racecourse Specialist by Jon Burgess (of False Favourites fame); I have an old copy which runs to 156 pages long.  Not sure whether to plough through it or not?

No, I haven't heard of that one (or him to be honest !)

I did buy a few racing books in the 1980s when I first got into the sport but I gave up reading books a long time ago 

the old eyesight isn't what it was ..... I'm ok on the internet because I can just increase the font size

 

[Trotter]

3 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

HERE

Cheers ....... 

Someone mentioned the Massey site a page or two ago and I was also of the opinion that he'd shut down a few years ago so good to see it up and running

It's a mine of information 

 

[Valiant Thor]

As the majority of races fall into10-11-12 runner races Most rating or ranking systems given enough data the combined average success rate will fall within the ballpark figure %ages below  using this formula LOG10(1+1/d).....d = rank position

RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 %age 30% 18% 12% 10% 8% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% this goes for RP ratings ~ forecast odds ~ fav win rates ~ Top rated in handicaps ~ etc etc saves a lot of back checking only to come to a similar statistical conclusion. Note for the usual pedants .... Ballpark means within a reaonable margin of error so dont be posting I got rank 1 as 31.5 % where you state 30%...

Edited August 5, 2020 by Valiant Thor

[roger2256]

16 minutes ago, Trotter said:

Cheers ....... 

Someone mentioned the Massey site a page or two ago and I was also of the opinion that he'd shut down a few years ago so good to see it up and running

It's a mine of information 

 

Just my opinion but I think it's the best stats site by far  . Few new categories added over the years and can seem complicated until you get used to it but well worth the effort .

 

[Valiant Thor]

5 hours ago, Trotter said:

I'm not really a fan of those kind of stats

My view is always that those 5 years worth of favourites that the stats are based on are not running in the 6.40 at Kempton tonight !

But overall I think that about roughly a third of favourites ? ....... which means two-thirds don't

Just a 1 question
if you were following a tipster which would you say is more statistically significant
tipster 1 £100 profit from 1 race
tipster 2 £100 profit from 500 races.

@BillyHills once asked me why I disliked 10yr trends, its because in effect they are not 10yr trends but 10 race trends and therefore just chaotic events akin to your 6.40 @ Kempton
But whenever a large group of chaotic events come together and are placed in order of their regularity, they are then no longer chaotic but become the norm, without this planes wouldn't fly, engines wouldn't work, life wouldn't exist (unless you believe in some monotheistic deity that is )

Edited August 5, 2020 by Valiant Thor
spelling

[MCLARKE]

You are right that finding "false" favourites is a good strategy. Personally I am not a fan of laying horses, I enjoy the thrill of seeing a horse win not lose.

[Trotter]

25 minutes ago, Valiant Thor said:

Just a 1 question
if you were following a tipster which would you say is more statistically significant
tipster 1 £100 profit from 1 race
tipster 2 £100 profit from 500 races.

@BillyHills once asked me why I disliked 10yr trends, its because in effect they are not 10yr trends but 10 race trends and therefore just chaotic events akin to your 6.40 @ Kempton
But whenever a large group of chaotic events come together and are placed in order of their regularity, they are then no longer chaotic but become the norm, without this planes wouldn't fly, engines wouldn't work, life wouldn't exist (unless you believe in some monotheistic deity that is )

I see your point and agree that having studied  10, 20, 50 years and hundreds of thousands of races you might be able to say with some degree of confidence that over the next year a third of favourites will probably win and two-thirds won't

Not sure how that helps with trying to find the winner of the 6.40 at Kempton ...... does that belong in the third of races that favourites will win  or the two-thirds that they won't ? ....... after the event you can put it in it's category but not before the race

I think with trends most trends are as you say just chaotic instances based on a very small sample size but I can understand there could be something based on trainers aiming 'types' for certain races. Trainers will aim a certain type of horse for the Lincoln because that type tends to win .......... and it tends to win because trainers aim that type at the Lincoln. It's a self fulfilling cycle based on trainers being creatures of habit 

 

 

[Valiant Thor]

38 minutes ago, Trotter said:

Not sure how that helps with trying to find the winner of the 6.40 at Kempton ...... does that belong in the third of races that favourites will win  or the two-thirds that they won't ? ....... after the event you can put it in it's category but not before the race

Its all about using the correct statistics which most don't
If the race is a 3yo+ 0-60hc you use all available stats from that type of race as all horses then should have a similar makeup otherwise they shouldn't be in that type of race,
I personally then try to break my selections down to a coinflip 50/50 chance so say the past stats, eg... say 1st & 2nd favs win 50% between them against the field Ive already reduced the field to 2 by doing nothing with the knowledge backing all selections these stats bring up Im at least going to win 50% of the time, if I can dutch the 2 for over evens the pair then its a no brainer back the 2, If not price match those 2 against each other to see if there's a bet or not.
Luckily for me I have a machine learning program linked to Access that sorts out the best bets for the day then all thats needed is the books prices to see if any are worth backing.

In the database I have 149K flat races

Which is over 1.5 million horses raced against each other

Edited August 5, 2020 by Valiant Thor

[The Equaliser]

5 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Its all about using the correct statistics which most don't
If the race is a 3yo+ 0-60hc you use all available stats from that type of race as all horses then should have a similar makeup otherwise they shouldn't be in that type of race,
I personally then try to break my selections down to a coinflip 50/50 chance so say the past stats, eg... say 1st & 2nd favs win 50% between them against the field Ive already reduced the field to 2 by doing nothing with the knowledge backing all selections these stats bring up Im at least going to win 50% of the time, if I can dutch the 2 for over evens the pair then its a no brainer back the 2, If not price match those 2 against each other to see if there's a bet or not.
Luckily for me I have a machine learning program linked to Access that sorts out the best bets for the day then all thats needed is the books prices to see if any are worth backing.

In the database I have 149K flat races

Which is over 1.5 million horses raced against each other

I kind of agree with Trotter in as much as I don't like applying statistical data to a specific event such as the 6.40 at Kempton.  However, what you say seems to make good sense about using statistics intelligently.  Many people know that tossing a fair coin thousands of times will lead to results tending towards 50% heads and tails.  What they don't seem to appreciate is that the numerical difference between either heads or tails grows larger as further spins are added .  If you have written anything on using horse racing statistics intelligently I will be please to receive a copy.  Then maybe I could go on the Adrian Massey website and make some good use of it.  

I have a question for you?  I was looking for a decent "lay" bet earlier and came across the 6.35 at Lingfield.  There was a horse in it called O'Reilly's Pass. For quite a large part of the afternoon it was quoted as around 9/4 to 5/2 favourite.  The only information that I could glean was something like "hasn't done much up to now but should improve now handicapping".  There were other horses in the race that had showed some good form.  Having looked at later races I decided that it would be worth laying it as it seemed to be my best option.  Anyway, my question is how does anyone work out that if sending a horse handicapping should actually show such dramatic improvement so as to make it favourite over the other horses?

Hope you can help?

 

 

 

 

 

   

Edited August 5, 2020 by The Equaliser

[Valiant Thor]

1 hour ago, The Equaliser said:

I kind of agree with Trotter in as much as I don't like applying statistical data to a specific event such as the 6.40 at Kempton.  However, what you say seems to make good sense about using statistics intelligently.  Many people know that tossing a fair coin thousands of times will lead to results tending towards 50% heads and tails.  What they don't seem to appreciate is that the numerical difference between either heads or tails grows larger as further spins are added .  If you have written anything on using horse racing statistics intelligently I will be please to receive a copy.  Then maybe I could go on the Adrian Massey website and make some good use of it.  

No I havent written anything on using statistics, there are a lot bettter informed people than myself on the subject, what I would say is only learn what you need to know that concerns your method of betting the rest is irrelevant and take no notice from books written from ex-punters or racing media "experts" ,they are nothing better than failed tipsters, as they say those who can do those who cant  write a book about it .
Books by academics on statistics are a lot more informative , one I would recommend is Winning at the Races by William Quirin PhD deals with impact values which is something Im interested in.

I have a question for you?  I was looking for a decent "lay" bet earlier and came across the 6.35 at Lingfield.  There was a horse in it called O'Reilly's Pass. For quite a large part of the afternoon it was quoted as around 9/4 to 5/2 favourite.  The only information that I could glean was something like "hasn't done much up to now but should improve now handicapping".  There were other horses in the race that had showed some good form.  Having looked at later races I decided that it would be worth laying it as it seemed to be my best option.  Anyway, my question is how does anyone work out that if sending a horse handicapping should actually show such dramatic improvement so as to make it favourite over the other horses?

I dont do laying I think it should be banned to punters, but I cant see why OP should be fav , its a pretty naff race and OP's hcp mark may be considered a bit low for his first run in a hcp and bookies are always wary of that as its an unknown to them (three crap runs low handicap mark, good price , money down, BOOM gamble landed)  and if any money from connections has come in it wouldnt take much to shift the price.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Valiant Thor

[The Equaliser]

1 hour ago, Valiant Thor said:

 

Very many thanks for your reply, I will investigate the writer's books and his associates despite them maybe being failed punters as you suggest.

I can't understand why you are so against "lay" betting.  It seems to me that with your knowledge of how favourites can or cannot be favoured by specific race conditions you could be making a small fortune.  As seen when you kindly looked at the race I mentioned there seemed to be no significant reason why OP should sprout wings and win the race.

Looks as though I now need to research how the sporting world calculates whether an opening handicap mark for a horse is generous or not.  Despite how that is determined I still can't see how a horse that has been running badly is supposed to be transformed into a selection becoming favourite.

Ps I like crap races (class 5.6 & 7) for my lay bets.  I believe that they say up North, where there's muck there's brass

Thanks again

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by The Equaliser

[MCLARKE]

14 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

Can anyone give me favourite stats for 6 runner fields or less ?

If they could be broken down to the number of runners would be better again. i.e. favourites 6 runners, 5 runners so on.

Thanks

	WIN	RUN	RESULT	EXPECTED	PS	PP	AE
2	17	26	-4.23	19	129	-0	0.89
3	164	290	-5.37	165	529	-11	1.00
4	487	976	-7.01	485	1,271	-17	1.00
5	933	2,166	-35.61	939	2,168	-30	0.99
6	1,253	3,217	17.18	1,246	2,478	-44	1.01

 

This is for flat seasons 2014 - 2019. Results to BSP with 2% commission.

[The Equaliser]

When should I take notice that a horse is running too soon after a very recent race and may not have had time to get over its recent exhertions?

I quite often read the comment that a horse may not have got over its very recent race and I'm not sure when to take notice of it.  As I understand it sprinters can quite easily have a number of runs in quick succession and it doers not make much difference.  However, when one gets into distance races I thought that it did matter.

Anyway, what has prompted my question is that I layed Court Jurado in the 4.50 Stratford this afternoon mainly on the basis that it may not handle the sharp track and had made mistakes at Southwell over two miles on Tuesday.  I additionally thought that it may not have got over its recent exertions and may faulter because of this too.  Well, it didn't.  It not only handled the track OK but I was lucky that Getawaytonewbay ran a blinder and won by 3 and 3/4 lengths at 17/2.  

Does anyone know if there are any proven statistics that show horses under specific race conditions will not run well after a very recent run?

[Trotter]

1 hour ago, The Equaliser said:

Does anyone know if there are any proven statistics that show horses under specific race conditions will not run well after a very recent run?

Difficult one as all horses are different ....... I'm sure there are stats out there but they'll be aggregated over thousands of horses so might not help much in the case of a particular horse

I also reckon different trainers will have different methods 

Look through the horses past form and see if they have any record of having run well after only a few days since last race

See if they tend to win after a long break. Some horses are just 'best fresh' and began to tail off after a coupe of runs back from a break

if a horse has run a few days previously check for comments in the race notes such as 'all out', or extended dual for lead, or 'hard ridden'. ...... would suggest that the horse might need a bit of a break before it runs again. Horses that had a bit of a slog in soft or heavy ground might need a break

Horses that ran a big speed or time figure might not reproduce that a couple of days later ..... obviously it takes more out of a horse to run fast than it does to run slow

My usual method would be to look for any pattern in the past form and then read the race comments from the previous run if it was within a few days

Bit of after-timing with Count Jurado ..... firstly I think Southwell and Stratford are pretty similar tracks . Both Left hand and fairly tight or sharp so if he ran OK at Southwell he should be OK at Stratford. As for the jumping Southwell has difficult fences whereas Stratford has easy fences. So Stratford is a good track for an iffy jumper, Neither the track nor the fences would have persuaded me to lay him. 

I don't do laying anyway but I might have had him down as a false favourites because his record indicates that he's pretty useless. On the other hand it was a very poor race. Not a race I would either back or lay in ...... I'm Out !

?

 

[kroni]

@The Equaliser have a look at the recent race and judge for yourself if it had a hard race, for example,  theres quite a difference between a horse that gets tired in battling finish in 3m chase on heavy ground round towcester than a horse that was held up made a mistake or not got clear run and given an easy time afterwards.

you would think trainers wont run the horses if they know they are not recovered, but it would seem even they often dont know themselves if its ready to perform again

good luck if your laying these kind of horses, the fact @ralphie7 has a successfull system backing quick return horses would be a worry

personally i am not worried about a quick return race unless it had a hard race or got tired last time out.

the horse you mention Court Jurado looked like he was going to be an easy winner before those 2 late mistakes, it would be hard to say he had a hard race there, and the trainer running him again 2 days later would be more a positive than a negative in this case.

[The Equaliser]

Many thanks @Trotter and @kroni for your very helpful and useful advice.  In relation to "a very recent run" I think that it may be best to conclude that if the trainer runs the horse then it should be assumed that the horse will give its running.  But as you say, if checking back on the previous race I find that it indeed had a very hard race then it could be a factor that the horse may well not be on top form today.  One would hope that the trainer would not run it in these circumstances.

Looks as though I can only apply "a very recent run" as being a good "lay" factor in very limited circumstances.

I will continue to seek out as many factors as I can that may influence a short priced favourite failing to live up to market expectations.

Although tricky I love to choose from class 5, 6 and 7 races for horses to be the most unreliable in giving their running.  Obviously horses dropping down in grade have to be treated with extra care before considering them for "lay" purposes.

Once again, many thanks

 

 

[MCLARKE]

Backing horses after a recent run is a "system" that seems to have stood the test of time. On the flat over the last few years the results for horses running less again less than 5 days ago is 

378 winners

1,109 runners

84.41 points LSP (8% ROI).

It has delivered a profit in each of the last 5 years.

[The Equaliser]

7 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

Backing horses after a recent run is a "system" that seems to have stood the test of time. On the flat over the last few years the results for horses running less again less than 5 days ago is 

378 winners

1,109 runners

84.41 points LSP (8% ROI).

It has delivered a profit in each of the last 5 years.

Hi M, Looks like laying these beasts with a 34% strike rate is not a good strategy.  Many thanks for your help

 

[Pirate53]

If you are looking to lay favs may be better to look at AW as fav strike rate is only circa 28%.

[BillyHills]

The Equaliser, it's funny watching you ask a question or query something and all of the little helpers running around giving you advice and stats.

I wondered why you asked if you could start this thread?

It's a good read anyway

[MCLARKE]

 

3 minutes ago, BillyHills said:

The Equaliser, it's funny watching you ask a question or query something and all of the little helpers running around giving you advice and stats.

I appreciate the questions, it makes me think. I think I'll re-visit the quick returners, I'm amazed it has stood the test of time so well.

[Trotter]

1 hour ago, BillyHills said:

The Equaliser, it's funny watching you ask a question or query something and all of the little helpers running around giving you advice and stats.

I wondered why you asked if you could start this thread?

It's a good read anyway

I'm sure we had a long thread like this before ... you know, in the olden days

I seem to remember explaining to someone what 'Penalty Value' meant in the race conditions and also what nosebands were for

And of course we get regular threads asking how the handicap works

Seems like we used to have many more debate or discussion threads or topics in the past. 

[The Equaliser]

3 hours ago, BillyHills said:

The Equaliser, it's funny watching you ask a question or query something and all of the little helpers running around giving you advice and stats.

I wondered why you asked if you could start this thread?

It's a good read anyway

I started it because I thought that it may help people who have genuine questions about horse racing and betting and, of course any newbies seeking help.  Sure, I throw in questions that may help me in my endeavour to either find winners and/or losers. I am pretty sure that the voluntary replies given by PL members with years of experience does help other punters beside myself.

Incidentally, I am still in the same camp as @Trotter in as much as I wouldn't place a bet on a selection just because of a statistic. i.e. I like to look at a race and consider the opposition before either backing or laying a horse.  However, I will definitely now take notice of a relevant statistic such as a "horse having a recent run" so as not to "lay" it just because I think that the race has come too soon.

I have improved a bit recently on my winner finding and am pleased that my Trixies (not today though) in selecting shorter priced quality race selections is starting to pay off.

On the "lay" bets side I am trialling £2.11 lay bets on first or maybe second favourites with a max liability of £10 per transaction.  I want to increase my staking to £21.10 in the near future but, as you may appreciate risking up to a £100 for a £20 return will take a lot of guts and being correct on a lot of occasions for me to make a profit .

I don't think it does any harm for punters who just want to back horses to win or each way to look at the relevant factors that may cause a horse not to win.  After all it could save them some money!  ?

 

 

 

 

[BillyHills]

2 hours ago, Trotter said:

I'm sure we had a long thread like this before ... you know, in the olden days

I seem to remember explaining to someone what 'Penalty Value' meant in the race conditions and also what nosebands were for

And of course we get regular threads asking how the handicap works

Seems like we used to have many more debate or discussion threads or topics in the past. 

Yeah, we have had lots Trotter and many of these questions have been asked and answered before but we do have new members so its useful to have it.

?

[The Equaliser]

5 hours ago, BillyHills said:

Yeah, we have had lots Trotter and many of these questions have been asked and answered before but we do have new members so its useful to have it.

?

Haha, it occurs to me that you could write up a compendium of FAQ's so that we can all assimilate it so as to avoid putting forward repetitive questions  

Edited August 7, 2020 by The Equaliser

[MCLARKE]

12 hours ago, Pirate53 said:

If you are looking to lay favs may be better to look at AW as fav strike rate is only circa 28%.

This may be the case in the winter months. In the summer months the strike rate is 33% and backing the AW favourites generates a profit.

One note of caution, 2019 showed a loss.

[The Equaliser]

10 hours ago, MCLARKE said:

This may be the case in the winter months. In the summer months the strike rate is 33% and backing the AW favourites generates a profit.

One note of caution, 2019 showed a loss.

Many thanks M for a balanced view for us punters.

One question occurs to me with regards to all these stats.  Would you place a bet based purely upon the stats? 

Also, you mentioned earlier you would be re-visiting "horses returning to racing within 5 days" I don't think that you would blindly back horses despite the wonderful stats.  However, it occurs to me that many punters would because they are looking to minimise the time they spend on researching their betting.  The same goes for punters looking for top rated horses which I must confess I find a dubious way of selecting horses to bet on   

Hence, what sort of advice would you suggest to punters for them to carry out in addition to pure stats/ratings before putting their hard earned cash on a horse?

Sorry, this is a tough question.