Forums

Horse Antepost

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 242 comments are related to the topic:
Coral Eclipse Stks.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 4 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 242
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 12:33
Figgis

Yes, that was a good old rant. You covered a lot of ground there.Looks like it needs a thread of its own.Happy
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 12:50
Figgis

Different methods, different results. I think I rated AK's Ascot run more highly than you. I have him running on final time to 119 but projecting to 128 given the fractions. At Sandown, I rated the race as 106 projecting to 109. So, that's my strting point, I have him as a good G1 winner.

TF and the BHA are using collateral methods i.e. ignoring pace/time, to come with a rating which makes sense using those methods.Likewise, RP have an RPR of 127 but a TS of 105. Which is why, for me, a single figure, from whichever method use, is not initself sufficient to get a fix. And of course, for me, the final time figure is also not enough by itself. You need to know how the pace was distributed to understand the figure came about.
By:
pedrobob
When: 10 Jul 13 12:54
interesting points, Sandown, re the "traders/IT experts/mathematicians"....

Was listening to that Radio 4 programme Monday re the IT experts basically arbing the stock exchanges with fast algorithms and programs. Guess the traders basically trying to do the same on these betting exchanges?

But does that not provide plenty of opportunity for the opinion players? After all, if the traders are merely trying to preempt weight of money or the direction of a betting graph, that must mean plenty of value elsewhere as other selections drift in price.... or even shorten up unneccessarily as the traders spark or chase a false drift in price on a different selection?

James Willoughby excellent to listen to, but is always harping on about how the market gets it right. Yet we are saying the market is dominated by traders and IT bods, who presumably have little interest incorporating form into their algorithms? (or do they?)

Regularly we see plenty of drifters win, plenty of gambles go astray. As you have pointed out, plenty of them are spoofs. So as ever, is not the solution for the successful opinion player simply to go against the market? And has there never been a better time to do so with so many "traders/IT experts/mathematicians" (and presumably non-opinion players) providing liquidity with which to go up against?
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 12:56
I think Timform's ratings are generally about 7lb higher than BHA's ratings. So their 129 would be around 122 on bha scale, which suggests BHA's assesment is further out.

On my ratings I would say Timeform 2-3lb too high and BHA 6-7lb too high. I have Al Kazeem on 119 compared to say Farhh 125 and St Nic Abbey 122.

Of course my ratings could we well out, we shall see. I am looking forward to Al Kazeem's next race to find out.
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 13:08
I just can't see how Miblish can go into the POW off 105 and then come out with 116 and Mukhadram who had the run of the race at ascot under a good ride went into that race on 111 and came out with a 125. Clearly the bha handicapper did not look at any sectionals.
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 13:12
Sandown

I agree that you need to know how a final timefigure came about. Where I would differ is that I still believe that generally it is enough to know if a race was truly run or not and usually it is possible to know this without dissecting sectionals too much. I'm still to be convinced that projectional timefigures based on sectionals are accurate enough to warrant the amount of work involved. Admittedly this is based only on my own brief look into the matter, and the work I've seen published. I do not know of your own work so would not give an opinion on your methods.

The main problem I have with sectionals is that the people I've seen involved in their work seem to assume that there is no real advantage in final timefigures anymore, that final timefigures have been done to death and that sectionals are the key. I completely disagree with this, as there is a great deal of difference between commercial final timefigures and my own. Timeform and Topspeed timefigures are quite poor, imo. As the people doing the sectional work seem to think these figures are worthwhile I don't have a lot of faith in their conclusions.
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 13:14
pedrobob

I heard that programme, too. The betting exchanges are experiencing the same problems as the financial markets with high-speed bots placing hundreds if not thousands of offers in a very small time frame, As they make their profit usually on 1 tick movement they do so, so rapidly that manual players couldn't use that "skimming" strategy. I've also no doubt that markets are easily manipulated on here - spoofers - and so even the direction of movement can be influenced.Its these players who have caused such problems for BF that has led to the inroduction of the PC and superPC.

Incidentally, back in the day (2004 I think) BF carried out an analysis of drifters and shorteners and discovered that a loss was made on shorteners if backed at the shortest price but a profit was made on the drifters if backed at the biggest/last price.What they didn't show was that if you got on the shorteners at the best price you would have made an even bigger profit.

The question that you ask is, can Opinion players ever win in a market dominated by computers and traders generally.

Well, the answer to that must be "yes" assuming that one's own methods enable some kind of "edge" to be developed. But it has to be an edge which is consistent, based on some info/methodology advantage and even then it has to implemented in such a way (staking,discipline, money management) which makes the best of it.My view is that in the last 10 years with the increasing availability of form, videos, computers,information sources, TV channels etc that it has become far harder to make good money than it was in the pre BF days. But that is more coincidence than cause imo, as far as exchanges are concerned. Plus the fact that the BM's methods of weeding out winners has made it near impossible to benefit from the early price ricks (fewer now because of the BF tissue) the AP market and generally the problem of getting money on even if you have developed an "edge."
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 13:20
In my view, a far bigger problem to the opinion punter when playing middle and low grade racing in particular is the transparency of the Betfair market and the weight of informed money.
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 13:26
Figgis

Each to their own. If you put in more effort on final timefures, as you obviously do, and you know why and how you've reached a figure, of course its far superior to just looking at someone else's figure.Personally, I came to the conclusion a long time ago, and I've been using my own time figures for near on 40 years now,that used in conjunction with sectionals and with collateral ratings, the totality of figures give me a more complete, rounded view on not only how good a horse might be, but also how and why and when they are likely to repeat,improve or regress.

What I do know for sure is that any figure is likely to be wrong, its just a case of minimising the degree to which its likely to be wrong.Grin
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 13:28
In my view, a far bigger problem to the opinion punter when playing middle and low grade racing in particular is the transparency of the Betfair market and the weight of informed money.

I agree entirely with that.
By:
pedrobob
When: 10 Jul 13 13:31
Figgis, Willo also talks about "the weight of informed money".....

What do you mean by that? People with some sort of inside information, opinion players only prepared to put their money on late.....?
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 13:40
Sandown

When most people do final timefigures the assumption is that all races on the same part of the course can be directly compared with each other and the allowance used must be the same. Of course this has to be a starting point but I realised some years ago that sticking rigidly to this approach will put you away as much as it'll point you to winners. This will, of course, lead to the same problem when comparing sectionals. The key is knowing when races should be compared and when they shouldn't, and when they differ, by how much. This isn't easy and can only come with experience. Using this approach can lead to errors of their own, but when mastered it produces far more accurate results than the alternative.

An example of this was when Hot Snap won the Nell Gwyn, a direct comparison lead to the conclusion that Hot Snap was as good as home and hosed in the Guineas, whereas really it was Intello that clocked the most impressive time on the card. Ok, I've used an example that worked in my favour, there will be many times where I'm wrong and the commercial timefigures are right, but more often it's the other way around.
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 13:44
Ped, yes I mean people with inside info, their hangers on, bookmakers, etc. I'm mainly talking about the well being of the horse and when it's ready to roll, or not.
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 13:48
*led
By:
Sandown
When: 10 Jul 13 13:55
Figgis

How do you avoid the problem when using varying going allowances, of producing figures to suit your opinion? In theory, might you not end up sometimes with  different allowances for every race on the card, giving you 6 or 7 different allowances?
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 14:02
I'm still keeping the faith that Hot Snap is a G1 filly Figgis. Not sure what's happened to her but hope we see her again this season.
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 14:07
Sandown

It would very rarely result in as many different allowances as that, although I have known it at the Curragh on a rainy, windy day. A recent example would be Doncaster 5th July. If all races on the straight are compared strictly with the Glen Moss race, then they look pretty poor. The usual conclusion would be either, all the other runners were rubbish, they absolutely crawled then sprinted, or they all ran so fast they hit a brick wall and walked to the line. With the exception of the race won by Ethel I'd say none of those theories fit with the truth, which is that the Glen Moss race is clearly out of line with the others and requires a separate allowance. This example is one of the more obvious cases, there are others that cause more of a headache.
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 14:10
I missed the other possible conclusion that Glen Moss was a Group horse in a handicap, don't think so.
By:
pedrobob
When: 10 Jul 13 14:11
Figgis, I sometimes get concerned that they don't put the starting stalls in the correct place. In particular where they have to wheel them out into the centre of a straight track.
A few metres either way, and comparing races with each other becomes a nightmare
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 14:14
Ped, yes I'm sure that must be happening sometimes, as you get meetings where a few races over a particular distance are out of step.
By:
pedrobob
When: 10 Jul 13 14:57
What do you all make of Sky Lantern? Amazingly, I gave her best figure second in the Nell Gwyn, not when winning the Guineas or the Coronation...

Which means agree with Stevie, that Hot Snap must be something else.
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 15:00
Pedro I have 111 for nell gwyn, 113 for guineas and 119 for coronation. I did add 5 on for sectionals for guineas
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 15:01
sorry 116 coronation
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 15:02
Hot snap 115+ for nell gwyn
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 15:03
Best figure, for me, was the Coronation, only a 2lbs improvement over her Guineas win, though. I've always maintained the Nell Gwyn time was misleading. Think she was underrated for the Guineas win and even though her Coronation win was an improvement, it probably looked even better than it actually was due to the way the race was run. Still, should be nothing capable of beating her on Friday, assuming she's in the same form and it doesn't develop into a farce.
By:
Millerracing67
When: 10 Jul 13 19:28
Figgis/Sandown.  You both seem a bit 2 hung-up on how high Al Kazeem is being rated for his G1 wins this season & how he compares with past winners of Sat's Eclipse Stks. That point of view is just that, "a point of view" the handicapper will be the one who will have the official say on that matter, as well as timeform, we punters will agree or disagree on it.
I'am more interested on the betting winners side of thing myself. As for the 3s on offer on sat morn with Hills & Lads, I managed to get £50 on with both books & the rest on at 5/2 with bet365, so your point on that matter holds no water.
I stand by my view that Al Kazeem ic a smart G1 horse & it will take a very smart performance from something to beat him this season.
We shall see.Shocked
By:
mac99
When: 10 Jul 13 20:59
hey Figgis/ Sandown    i know this is a bit off topic  but what do you think  about the chances of  SpaceShip tomorrow , ran a great race at Ascot  LTO  from a poor  draw  ( 15)  , this is a good bit less demanding   I would have said , you know on a lime through Cap O'rushes and his run in the Irish Derby  this horse  should now be racing ofExcitedGrinoff 108 min  !
By:
mac99
When: 10 Jul 13 21:00
* line
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 10 Jul 13 21:18
didn't get a great figure for me mac although races weren't truly run on round course that day. Cap O rushes came from a long way back that day and was a bit keen early on so was clearly alot better than that. Space Ship has yet to post a decent figure for me and I think he will find it tough off this mark at 10f.

I have actually backed Goodwood Mirage who I gave a figure of 95 to lto and is my clear top rated, the form has also been boosted by sennockian star. but anyway good luck with your bet.
By:
mac99
When: 10 Jul 13 21:25
Steve.
I was aware  Cap O'rushs posted the best final furlong  time in the field that day and  Space ship  has a bit to prove   speed wise,    but a  three pound rise for that effort  was very fair  imo
By:
Figgis
When: 10 Jul 13 21:33
I agree with Stevie, Space Ship is in the lower half of the field on my ratings at the weights, but don't let that put you off as the race is much too difficult for me. Fwiw, my highest rated at the weights is Party Royal but he has no form over this trip. My next best is another Johnston runner, Greeleys Love, who has been beaten a combined distance of over 50 lengths on his last 2 starts and as a Johnston runner probably means it will bolt up tomorrow Wink.
By:
mac99
When: 10 Jul 13 21:34
Goodwood mirage  progressive profile  , but the  sire Jeremy  puts me off  ,does he get ten furlong horses ?    he will  fly home now!!  gl
By:
mac99
When: 11 Jul 13 06:50
Figgis
space ship   may have run  some way  below his best  at  Epsom on his penultimate run ,  if he runs like he did there  and his held up out the back   today he will  probably  stay out the back , needs to ridden just off the pace  imo,  On the Epsom form  Greelys love  is a  serious contender  have not investigated  the chances of Party Royal  but who could be Shockedastonished by a  Johnston  outsider gl
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 11 Jul 13 08:32
I remember jeremy as a miler mac but probably now he's most famous as being the sire of triumph hurdle winner Our Connor.
Anyway not alot of sire stats on Jeremy yet.

so far
5f 2/45 -35.00
6f 5/68 -12.87
7f 6/45 -3.37
8f 4/23 +45.00
10f 2/11 +21.00

ground
good or faster 9/128 7% -69.00
g/s and softer 11/81 13.58?% +68.26

I suppose the main worry on those stats would be the ground
but it's usually well watered for this meeting
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 11 Jul 13 10:09
I think an interesting race from a sectionals point of view was the maiden space scope finished 4th in behind Telescope last year. There were 3 mile races that day, the nursery and the hcap races truly run and the telescope maiden which was a steady pace. Telescope finishing the last 3f in around 34.4 compared to 37.1 for red avenger in the nursery and 36.5 for the hcap race.

Anyway this is where I agree with Sandown, my speed figure for the race wasn't telling me anything other than it was a steady pace. It's not until you add in sectionals that you can see the winner and 2nd that day are decent horses.  Space ship on the other hand didn't get as big a mark up as he had the run of the race but still suggested he was a high 80s horse as too was Soviet Rock.

A few good horses in that race that the bare speed figures didn't do justice to.

Now even if my sectional workings aren't that reliable, I still think it gives you a better idea of how good a horse is rather than not making any adjustments for pace.
By:
Figgis
When: 11 Jul 13 11:55
Yes, I totally agree, that race was obviously run at a slow pace. When I put a figure on a horse like that I know it's highly likely that it's capable of better and I'm mindful of that in future. A bit like when I rate a debut winner, although many decent debut winners go backwards next time, some more likely to if they're form certain yards, but that's a separate matter.

Where I disagree is that you can pinpoint how much a horse should be marked up for a good closing sectional/too fast early sectional. I think the outcome of this is very hit and miss. While there is some logic to it, there are also many horses who can run very fast for a given split, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to run faster overall when that pace is rationed. Also I know how much wind can effect races from one race to the next, I'm sure the same is true for sections of a race. Anybody who thinks that wind has a uniform effect during an afternoon is being very naive.

As I said before, I'm not commenting on Sandown's workings as I don't know them exactly. There are probably people out there who have refined their methods to be pretty accurate. I'm only commenting on available published work I've seen.
By:
Figgis
When: 11 Jul 13 11:59
*wind can affect
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 11 Jul 13 12:37
yes there are flaws with them that's for sure. Obviously an out and out galloper with a good cruising speed setting a steady pace would not be getting marked up enough against say a horse that didn't truly stay but had a good to turn of foot. Yes the wind can mess things up also. I still find them worth doing though but don't trust them like I do my speed figures.

Anyway good days racing today and interesting to see what happens with that coventry stakes form.
By:
Figgis
When: 11 Jul 13 12:46
Yes, I was just thinking the same Stevie, a poor run from SJH wouldn't necessarily devalue the form, as he was beaten nearly 7 lengths, but it would give a doubter like me a bit more evidence. I have Brown Sugar top rated, but with promising once raced winners, Canyari and Figure of Speech not far behind. I'm laying the fav, he might be better than the Coventry form, I think a few there ran below their capabilities, but I think he's poor value.
By:
Stevie Gerrard
When: 11 Jul 13 12:49
I have good ratings for Brown Sugar, Canyari, Astaire and Figure Of Speech. Figure of Speech impressed me most but the call has to be lay the fav.
Page 4 of 7  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com