There are some days when you soon realise you would have been better staying in bed. Today was such a day. Wednesday also showed the dangers of betting overnight and highlighted something that irritates the heck out of me.
Last night Rydane was apparently in top form, running at a track and distance he prefers and was running at his best time of year on ground that suited. But on the approach to racetime two things happened that are within the rules and happen most days if you don't watch for them.
First, the only market activity of note was the sustained gamble on Red Cape from an early 13/2 down to 11/4 favourite and he duly obliged.
Now, second, it is my reading of the rules of racing that a horse turns up for its race capable of running to the best of its ability. I won't say that something a bit off happened because that would be foolish of me and also libellous. But once the market opened Rydane drifted constantly to rest at 9/1 - almost the outsider of the field. He then ran abysmally, never getting going and being at the back all the way through the race.
I usually ignore drifters because I, and I suspect you, know that drifting horses often win. If a horse drifts and shows up at least a little through the race before being well beaten, that is fine. But when an apparently fancied horse (Rydane was one of the best backed horses the evening before according to Wednesday evening's Racing Post) runs woefully badly, then something has got to be wrong. I have seen nothing about the horse being injured during the race. So that leaves it open to a lot of questions. Was the horse off colour? Was it morose in the paddock? Or was something else unseen the cause, such as a reaction to the heat? The latter may turn out to be the case, but as I say, nothing has been said or intimated.
Tim Easterby is one of my favourite trainers as many of you may know, so I don't really want to consider the negative gambling aspect of the race. But did the Easterby's hear of the planned gamble on Red Cape and shelve plans for a win? I think that is highly unlikely.
After considering a lot of reasons, I can't figure out why Rydane ran so badly because no-one has intimated or said anything. Why should a horse well backed the evening before suddenly drift badly on the day of the race. If there was indeed something amiss pre-race then the horse should not have run. If the horse was affected during the race by something such as the heat, the stewards should have informed the public of this after noting a vets report. But none of this happened.
The Easterby's are among my favourite people in racing being, as I am, a fellow Yorkshireman, but the way Rydane ran, I would expect them at the very least to let us know the reason for the horse's lacklustre run - the minimum being that we are reassured the horse is okay, which I dearly hope he is. But punters who pay the piper can never call the tune. We are pointedly ignored.
In the end, I didn't bet Rydane. I wasn't that foolish. Sometimes a drifting horse just has to be ignored. And, given all his form - especially recent form - it was clear as a highland spring that the horse was not going to win the race. I hope you all took the hint as I did.
Now to the blog and the relatively average results for the ratings.
You can view our two main services (Handicap Ratings with the Speed Ratings and Select) free for seven days by registering HERE
The Handicap Ratings and Speed Ratings combined top three strike rate for Wednesday was 65% following Tuesday's 78%, Monday's 63% and Sunday's 75%, an in running weekly average of just over 70%.
There were just five (4) and (5) UK graded races, Wednesday producing an 80% top two winning strike rate. Two were won by the clear top rated horse and two were won by 2nd top - one of them joint. Just one race was unsuccessful.
The full top three summary for Tuesday is:
HANDICAPS
Clear top rated strike rate was 23%
Top two strike rate (incl joints) was 42%
Top three strike rate was 62%
SPEED RATINGS
Clear top rated strike rate was 31%
Top two strike rate (incl joints) was 35%
Top three strike rate was 38%
note: Unless there are overnight withdrawals there is always one clear top rated horse. There are never more than three horses in the top two in any race where there are joint 2nd tops (one top rated two joint 2nd top). There are never more than four horses in the top three in any race where there are either joint 2nd or joint third tops.
If a horse isn't in the top three rated of the handicaps or the speed ratings, then it is highly likely it won't win.
You can see an explanation of the Handicap Ratings HERE and an explanation of the Speed Ratings HERE. The Speed Ratings are an addition to the handicaps at no extra cost and you can subscribe HERE. There has never been a better time to join us.
I suspect you're not ready for my next bit....
My overnight selections for Thursday:
Rose Blossom should confirm Richard Fahey's high opinion of her by taking Haydock's 2-40 and thus allay fears she is only average after her Royal Ascot run in the ruck.
Mark Johnston has a line of form via his maiden winner Interdiamond to know his chances against Dubai Echo. On balance, his Eastern Aria (Epsom 9-00) currently has the best book of form and should continue her progression and win at the expense of that rival.
Although he would be suited by further, it is intriguing that Gallagher is kept to 7f for Newbury's Conditions event (8-10). He ran a reasonable enough seasonal debut in Royal Ascot's Jersey Stakes and should confirm placings with Patrician's Glory who ran on late behind him in the Jersey and who rates the likely winner if Gallagher bounces.
Have a good day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Interesting that on Wednesday the Speed Ratings showed little progression from the top-rated to the top three-rated, unlike Tuesday, which had a more even feel to it; matching the Handicap Ratings. Makes me feel that Speed Ratings are less reliable, but can come out with some high-price winners, which is the same sort of return you get with Topspeed in the RP.
Taking the day as a single unit, you would be right. But days like that are not a true reflection of the overall picture. If you notice the speed ratings almost matched the handicap ratings again today.
It would be impossible for us or any other service to maintain the very best strike rate every day. The secret is in producing consistent high quality results that enormously outweigh the rare poor day. Poor days are inevitable. They are the nature of the beast and unavoidable.
I would say (as I say here http://www.towerform.co.uk/speed-ratings-explained.html) that I have yet to see any speed ratings consistently match the top two results of the better handicap ratings. That is not to say the Speed Ratings are worthless. They can be more successful in gaining value on the top rated horses.
It has become evident to us that top rated winner for winner gives better SP returns with the speed ratings than the handicap ratings. But on the top two (and even the top three) the handicaps are almost always better.
The question remains of how the Speed Ratings might be used in conjunction with the Handicap Ratings? Otherwise, there is a danger that the results can be massaged by having different ratings (don't get me wrong this is not an accusation), but there is one firm that promotes three separate ratings, and of course they're successful as they're picking just about every horse in the race. There has to be some sort of relationship between the Speed Ratings and the Handicap Ratings for the inclusion of the former to be of value.
As I see it, what you are saying is that the Handicap Ratings are proven with a good strike rate for the Top 3, but the Speed Ratings might provide a better RoI, albeit with a slightly more up-and-down performnce (which is why I commented on the low strike rate in the first place).
At the end of the day, whether we are using the Handicap Ratings or the Speed Ratings (or some combination of the two - by way of modifying one because of the other) the major task that faces us is how do we either reduce the number of selections per race to back, or how do we select which races to concentrate on (such as using the race strength figures).
Either set of ratings can only be a starting point and I certainly use them to reduce the amount of time spent studying form or possible selections (if you can reduce a 10-runner race down to 4 runners, you can save a lot of time.
I have put my follow up comments on the website because this site will not accept messages over a certain number of words.
The address to view my follow up is here http://www.towerform.co.uk/bloganswer.html
Please copy it and paste it in your browser.
First of all, many thanks for a comprehensive response, which was most useful. In case other people are reading this (hopefully) I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you of either massaging results or trying to increase your strike rate by any foul means (if I thought that I wouldn't have renewed my subscription for a further 3 months).
Among all the good stuff in your response was something I found extremely interesting and worth noting upon.
You say that you use the ratings for shorter distance races, and this goes against the perceived wisdom that shorter races are more of a lottery.
I've never understood this, as I believe that the shorter the race less tactical it will be (in the main). 5F sprints are usually full-on affairs from the start and horses tend to give their true running.
Plenty to digest and try and put into practice, but I will add one little trick I am trying (which has had some success in reducing the number of runners to back in a race - ideally I like to dutch two). I cut and paste Diomeds one-line comments (from the RP) next to the top-three rated. It can clearly indicate if some aspect of the race is wrong for a horse. Very quick, and quite effective so far.
Just as an add-on to my final comment, I'm going through today's racing (Sunday), and came across the following race (8F) at Ayr, wher the Top-three rated (including jt seconds) attracted the following comments from Diomed
Unexposed type from good yard on workable mark.
Seems in handicapper´s grip at present.
Holds his form very well but all wins at 7f.
Followed good run with a bad one and others preferred.
Four horses short-listed by the ratings and three of them attract negative comments while the top-rated has a positive comment.
Trading at around 2/1 on the exchanges it could be beaten (in fact Spotlight in the RP thinks it will be), but to me it is a stand-out bet.
Specialising in certain race types is a personal choice borne from experience. In my (long) experience, I have found that shorter distances at a certain class level work best for me. Other people may disagree. I would encourage everyone to do some research of their betting to find any patterns that exist. If you have a high losing percentage in certain types of race or distances, it is clear you need to drop those races and distances from your betting.
Many people try to specialise and start out with best intentions. Unfortunately, they see what they view a “good bet” in a race type in which they no longer bet. It wins at value odds and they then decide to re-include that race type into their betting. The result is they have gone full circle and ended up betting the same way they have for years.
As for the point about shorter distances being akin to a lottery, I would think the people who believe that are betting in big field sprints and mile races. They would be right about it becoming a lottery in those circumstances. But in reasonable sized fields of 7 or 8 to 12 or 14 for example, the lottery metaphor becomes silly. I would strongly advise everyone to think very carefully about betting in large fields of any distance.
I think the attraction to big field betting is the probable higher SP. This goes back to my earlier reply about some punters relating value simply to a bigger price. That is misunderstanding what value betting actually is. I have bet evens when the opportunity has presented itself. Even money was my estimate of the value of one horse. So when I saw evens offered, I jumped in. Yet, I know a few people who go into the betting shops locally, see a very short priced forecast favourite and discard the race without looking further. I also see them look at a big field and immediately discard the favourites in the race. They are attracted like magnets to high priced horses they think they will get a better return on.
Many bet each way simply because the field is big. All I can say is that if this is their betting method, they should cease immediately. They have no nous for winning. Their second placed 20/1-I-told-you-it-would-run-well horse has returned less on outlay that the 2/1 winner they fancied in the next race but would not bet because it was a “shortie.” Bookies love that type of punter.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with each way betting. But to use it simply because another horse is too short is not exactly the way to do it. I only bet a larger priced horse each way when I am as certain as can be that it will be involved in the finish - not because I don’t want to back the hot favourite.
Finally, I never actually considered your “Diomed” type approach. But it is worth looking at to evaluate, maybe to check when there is just one positive among the top three. Interesting. And it certainly worked with the horse you mentioned.
Just a note about the Spotlight comments about the horse you mentioned. I don’t think he was saying the horse wouldn’t win, he seemed to be saying that it didn’t represent value – and he made the same value faux pas I made on the blog recently by selecting an each way horse that returned less for being placed than the winner would have had he bet it. It looks to be the same value mistake I mentioned about other punters earlier.
Thanks for your comments and please add to this or any other blog posting if you need clarification or explanation.
Post a Comment