Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The outcome of the Duchess of Cambridge Stakes today is a real headscratcher. Just how and why did Lucky Kristale win and why was it so impossible to predict - unless you had a Kristale ball.
To give this a horse a chance of winning you would have to have foreseen huge improvement on the part of the winner following a well beaten Ascot run plus foreseeing a below par run from Rizeena, an impressive winner at Ascot and a below par run from the O'Brien horse.
On ratings, LK was 13lb behind the fav and fifth on RPR's and even lower on TS ratings at seventh. There was nothing in the form , nothing in the market (30.0 on BF and 20/1 with BM's) to give a clue.
The only way I might have backed this winner was on the basis of pricing. I had priced it up at 12/1 and only by backing it because its price was bigger could I have backed it. Now thats the pure definition of a "value" strategy. Its the strongest reason I have seen recently for giving upon tryying to work out what might or might not win. Instead, just back on the figures. I've been down this path countless times before and I know the problems, such as ignoring what I think will win and backing something else because of the value is incredibly difficult to sustain, but this result has made me come to the realisation that prediction is not the way. And I didn't even have a bet in the race!
To give this a horse a chance of winning you would have to have foreseen huge improvement on the part of the winner following a well beaten Ascot run plus foreseeing a below par run from Rizeena, an impressive winner at Ascot and a below par run from the O'Brien horse.
On ratings, LK was 13lb behind the fav and fifth on RPR's and even lower on TS ratings at seventh. There was nothing in the form , nothing in the market (30.0 on BF and 20/1 with BM's) to give a clue.
The only way I might have backed this winner was on the basis of pricing. I had priced it up at 12/1 and only by backing it because its price was bigger could I have backed it. Now thats the pure definition of a "value" strategy. Its the strongest reason I have seen recently for giving upon tryying to work out what might or might not win. Instead, just back on the figures. I've been down this path countless times before and I know the problems, such as ignoring what I think will win and backing something else because of the value is incredibly difficult to sustain, but this result has made me come to the realisation that prediction is not the way. And I didn't even have a bet in the race!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 78
|
By:
Sandown
The trouble for me personally if rigidly trying to stick with a pure value approach goes back to what I said before about the transparency of the market and informed money. It's fine when I can work out the reasons why a horse is shorter or longer in the market than I would have it, I have no problem going against the crowd in those situations. However, there are lots of occasions when a horse is unexplainably shorter or longer than it should be. I say unexplainably, the real answer is that somebody close to the horse knows something I don't, which is borne out by the horse generally running near to the market price prediction. |
|
By:
Figgis
Whilst I agree with your comments, I also have to keep in mind the many occasions that I know about when a fancied horse was not reflected in its market price because connections, aware that the BF in particular is a dead giveaway, make sure that no money gets onto this site, nor does it show up in BM's prices. The money is put down in shops in small amounts spread across the country. This is a well orgainised operation (there's more than one) and its the way that decent prices can be obtained. To my mind, BF is really only suitable for large gambles on horses at the front of the market where there is sufficient liquidity although of course this means betting in last 5 minutes before the off. Let's face it, predicting outcomes and backing the most likely winner in our opinion, is not a rapid road to riches. Apart from that which we don't know but others do, there is also the large element of chance involved where no-one knows what might happen but we are all aware of the countless chance factors that arise in any given day..plus numerous others that we haven't thought of. I know it is satisfying to spend a lot of time on a race and get it right but this is more than offset by the number of times when things don't work out. On occasion, I have had the utmost confidence in working out the winner only to be wrong. It is most frustrating as well as being expensive. |
|
By:
Sandown
Do you believe significant gambles can still be landed that way these days without filtering through to the market on here? I think that's very rare. It's not so much plots that I'm talking about anyway, I mean unexpected extra market confidence in a horse, or unexplainable lack of confidence. |
|
By:
* or unexplainable lack of confidence, or more to the point, unexplainable confidence that one will run more poorly than its form chance.
|
|
By:
They still happen but mostly lower class, especially AW.
I have my doubts about beating the market consistently these days. |
|
By:
As for just backing to figures, I have sometimes thought about taking this approach myself as I think it would probably be more profitable long term. As well as believing my own time figures are more accurate than widely available ones (which sounds big headed but if I didn't believe that I wouldn't waste my time), they have the obvious advantage of not being reflected in the market.
Sartorialist today is a good example of a race where I had the winner top rated but didn't have a bean on. There are many more instances of similar priced winners and bigger that I don't back, or even worse, back something else in the race. One problem is keeping the faith with the inevitable losing runs of this approach, as there will be lots of bets struck on seemingly out of form horses. Another problem is where is the fun and mental stimulation? Obviously we're all out to make money, but a big attraction of this game for me is the challenge. How long did you stick with the method for? |
|
By:
On having a quick look at Topspeed and Raceform speed figures, I can see I was not alone in having Sartorialist well in. If factoring in the jockey allowance both sets of ratings had the winner top rated. Maybe people don't follow these ratings as much these days as I thought?
|
|
By:
12 months plus a number of shorter periods over the past 40 years. It was successful so why didn't I stay with it? As you say, it makes it a numbers game and a lot of the pleasure goes out of the it. But, it is getting so frustrating these days that I think I will return to it - value betting - for the rest of the year.
|
|
By:
I have to admit, while I'm still into the game I can't say I love it as much as I used to. Maybe it's partly an age thing but I'm also sure a lot of it is due to overkill. I cut out the jumps a few years ago, partly because of too much racing but it was beginning to lose its appeal for me anyway. I did, though, begin to include more winter all weather racing, but I cut that out last year as it became mind numbingly tedious.
|
|
By:
The returns for backers are poor these days and that in itself takes the pelasure out of it. No-one likes losing or even just breaking even given the investment of time that we all put in. We become too attached to the horse and forget that its a gambling game. Prices matter above all (related to chance) and staking and money managment offers the chance of better returns.Just look how traders and those with no form knowledge can succeed on here.
|
|
By:
Another problem with a strict value approach is pricing up a whole field of runners. Then there's still the decision to be made of how much weight to give to each relevant factor and incorporate it into the prices, which will inevitably lead to fine tuning further down the line. Unless the process is automated, but that has never appealed to me. There's the option of pricing up purely on figures, but there's still the decision of how far back you are going to use a runner's ratings.
|
|
By:
On having a quick look at Topspeed and Raceform speed figures, I can see I was not alone in having Sartorialist well in. If factoring in the jockey allowance both sets of ratings had the winner top rated. Maybe people don't follow these ratings as much these days as I thought?
Figgis, trainers like Stan Moore have top rated horses all the time.... that get well trounced. You can't rely on them producing a horse to run the same race twice, so that will be why punters refuse to play them even when priced up at 20's+.... Re Rizeena earlier, she clearly wasn't moving right from out of the stalls. Clive Brittain is another trainer in the unpredictable category imo, you wouldn't know what to expect from race to race. |
|
By:
I think part of the answer as to whether a LK was value is to ask was Rizeena good value or bad value. Now timeform had her 4lb ahead so after 3lb penalty that made her just 1 ahead of BBB and I think similar for RPRs so not much value there unless you add in improvement for step up in trip. Now Figgis had her much further clear in his ratings and there is no doubt Rizeena was a good value bet for him at just over evens and just because she lost does not mean she wasn't value.
As for making LK value then you'd have to be really rating the Albany race and also factoring in perhaps she was inconvenienced by racing on the pace into the wind at Ascot. But as I say a lot depends on how far ahead you had Rizeena of the rest, if you had her well clear then it would very difficult to make LK a good bet. If you're ratings are quite compressed and you had LK about the same or just ahead of Fig Roll then yes 20s would be value. Anyway overall I think you did the wise thing and left the race alone, I'm sure if there had been a massive standout bet at the prices you'd have had a bet. |
|
By:
22 years ago I ran a tipping line called The Punters Tissue. It was based on purely value bets, all bets were proofed to the Racing Post, Sporting Life, beforehand, and people payed by staying on a premium line for about 2 minutes. I still have the records, would you believe. From July 10 1991 toNov 9 there were 111 bets with 34 winners (30.6%0. Stakes based on a 100 pt bank were 595 pts with a profit of 633 (106% ROS) - can you believe that! 12 weeks of profit, 2 breakeven 4 losing weeks.
Happy days. Had I cracked it? Well, the NH season saw 339 pts profit on 335 staked (101% ROS). So the answer was "yes" wasn't it|? The 1992 Flat season went pear shaped. By June 7 1992 28 selections, 218 stakes 60 points loss (-27.5%) at which time I gave up. That was my longest real time, proofed experience of a purely value-led experiment. It was hard work, becasue as you say Figgis, every horse had to be evaluated and so did every race. Why the downturn? My notes from the period say that I was convinced that gradually it had tuned to a winner-finding approach. So, 20 odd years later, have I learned anything? I wonder. |
|
By:
Sandown, would "confidence" have had something to do with both the winning and losing runs?
When you believe in your strategy, you naturally keep on doing it. And it sounds like you did. I can easily imagine that once a few losing selections were made in the second year of the tipping line, it was easy to slip into "trying to pick the winner" mode.... rather than staying with the value? |
|
By:
re some of the opening posts of this thread, my limited contact with connections and those with the benefit of so-called "inside information" suggests you were invariably better off ignoring it.
I've found it often surprising how uninformed and ill-judged some trainers, owners / jockeys etc were / are, to assessing the opposition, booking of jockeys, failing to walk the track, race tactics ...... and worst of all, even assessing the merit of their own horse. Hence when you think you spot value with your own methods, do you not have to ignore the issue that Figgis describes here and elsewhere ie why is the horse a much longer price that you expected. After all, isn't that why you spend so much time working at at your own ratings method? For it to reveal value bets like Lucky Kristale was to Sandown (20/1+, but 12/1 in his book)? Otherwise, very simply, why bother? |
|
By:
pedrobob
Confidence may have been a factor, or more accurately over-confidence which can be deadly. You know the feeling, when you think you can walk on water. A slap in the face from a losing run, and before you know it you want the winning feeling back. I think that deep down it was and remains, a problem believing in just backing on the numbers. When you back a number of losers because they were value, leaving out those which won and which you knew were the most likely winners, is hard to take. There is a need to become detached from the horse, the race and the result. Hard to do. Talking about over-confidence, my worst case of over-confidence came with deep Impact for the Arc. Every figure I had said that this was the best horse I'd seen in a long-ti,e. My record in the Arc is outstanding but that's for another day. So, i went to town on this animal as i couldn't see it not winning. I was exposed for £25k to win £100k plus but confident. Then, on the day the Japanese went mad, the prices crazy and the opportunity arose to hedge on some of the others. Thank God they di because I managed to cut my liability to £5k on the winner. But I learned a lesson that day. No matter how good you have a horse, it can always be beaten by something unknown. In this case poor prep, and change of tactics. |
|
By:
The best thing about the value approach is you have to look at every runner in detail and it helps to stop a lot of bad bets. I have a lot of horses on the RP horse tracker that I believe will be good bets next time. Then I see them contract in price with the books overnight and because I cant get on I have to wait and back them on here and then of course by that time there is often no value left but I still sometimes end up backing them but those ones don't pay in the long run.
|
|
By:
Sandown, what type of strategy do you adopt now, as far as "winner" and / or "value" finding goes. Or is it somewhere in between?
|
|
By:
I price up every horse in a race but only do limited races (pattern races for 3YOs and up) so it's not too time-consuming. I very rarely back what I consider to be the most likely winner as it's rare for that horse to be overpriced. When the most likely winner beats my selection or selections, however, I'm much less annoyed than when a big priced one that I haven't identified as value beats them. In the long run, the value approach is much more sustainable than always backing the likeliest winner regardless of price.
|
|
By:
pedrobob
I'm retired from heavy punting (since Deep Impact!). My strategy is firstly driven by the need not to devote every hour of every waking day to the game. Secondly, to retain enjoyment. Thirdly not to have the pressure on me to make significant money. Ally this to the fact that since the arrival of BF we have seen the BF tissue eradicate the differences between BM's prices and therefore the elimination of "ricks" plus the explosion in sources available to everyone (video footage, better free ratings services, dedicated TV channels) has led to the opportunities for value having been considerably diminished, imo. So, my strategy is simply a return to the old old one of following horses. Using sectional times to find horses which are under-rated and likely to improve . Under-estimated as Patrick veitch says. The only problem is as Stevie G says, you still have to get them at a value price and that may not always be impossible. Even if people do not have a sophisticated time based methodology, they can still use their eyes and when they see a horse put up a good performence finishing with a lot of reserve energy, it gets haevily backed next time. I have 3 today but they are all at prices which 20 years ago might have been twice what they are today. |
|
By:
be possible.
|
|
By:
Sankara
I can identify with your strategy and agree with the problem of "missing one". |
|
By:
Stevie, Rizeena would definitely have been a value bet on my ratings but as I find 2yo form to be more erratic, particularly at the top level when they're running hard, fast races I tend to want a bit more value than I would with an older horse, so she still wasn't a bet for me.
|
|
By:
thanks Sandown for that advice
|
|
By:
pedrobob Joined: 27 Mar 06
Replies: 4894 13 Jul 13 09:52 re some of the opening posts of this thread, my limited contact with connections and those with the benefit of so-called "inside information" suggests you were invariably better off ignoring it. Pedrobob, so do you think it's just a coincidence when some yards runners are often more heavily backed when they win, or at least, run very well? Have you not noticed horses often finding extra pounds on your ratings when the money is down? I'm talking about more heavily backed than the forecast market suggests, even when there is no extra confidence from tipsters and commercial ratings. Likewise on unexplainable drifts, when the horse runs poorly yet appeared very much in form last time and has the same conditions. Yes I know there are always exceptions, but generally a horse that opens at 3/1 and drifts to 6/1 will run more like a 6/1 chance. |
|
By:
An obvious example of horse running today which 20 years ago wouldn't have been so short is pethers Moon 5.35 newmarket. Richard Hughes has written it up as his best chance today, the video available to everyone taking the RP on-line service, can watch the video time and time again, there is no chance of this slipping beneath the radar. At 2.74 there isn't much room in that for a lot of value.At twice the price, maybe.
|
|
By:
Figgis, agree there are plenty of yards who clearly know when they are expecting an "improved performance" and bet accordingly. Pretty sure other yards in the same race "bet" accordingly (or not) too....
Was watching a mickey mouse race at Cork last night, and 400 yards past the winning post, a rider of one of the also rans reached over and shook the hard of the winning rider (of the heavily gambled second fav). It was hardly the Epsom Derby, I wonder why he did that? Guess the only consolation to those outside of the loop is that it's obviously more difficult to pull off these stunts in higher grade racing, as think Sankara suggested earlier. But having said all that, still think you are better ignoring it and sticking to your own value-finding method. Unless you can see with your own eyes that there is something wrong with your selection, as the price drifts, just put more on.... ( a Nick Mordin recommendation?) |
|
By:
I had a big bet on Pethers Moon at Ascot, Sandown
 , should have won a street.But had big speed figures for it twice previously and one of the best handicapped horses in training in the higher grades, so suspect that plenty would still have picked up on it today if hadn't run at Ascot? |
|
By:
I don't think it's just about picking the most likely winner for most people on this forum. From what I've read we all take perceived value into account. I don't price up every horse in a race. My main strategy is to look for a horse I think is a likely winner in future. Then, depending on the race it's entered in and the opposition it faces I judge if I'm happy enough with the price to back it. So my perception of value is more instinct based. Sometimes this will be wrong and maybe it's not as accurate as somebody who specialises in pricing up the whole field, but it's a method that fits comfortably with me. If the price is right the horse doesn't necessarily have to be the horse I think most likely to win, but it would have to be one I think has a fairly strong chance of winning. For instance, I wouldn't back a horse at 10/1 just because I thought it had a 6/1 chance of winning, even though I know in theory this would lead to long term profits.
|
|
By:
yep that's one of mine as well Sandown. I was quite pleased when the email came through 2 days ago with this horse running. Looked at the race and saw a lightly raced cumani one and a godolphin one and was hopeful Pether's could be around 4/1. Then I looked on here last night and it was just a shade over 2s and now it's even lower.
|
|
By:
I'd definitely back that horse Figgis.
pedrobob, not just that it's harder to pull off in high profile races but also less desirable, as you can make good money by having your horse win one of these races so less need to cheat. |
|
By:
imagine if the likes of Cumani or Prescott had trained Frankel?
Would have had a mark of 62 after trailing down the field after three starts at Ponteract, Leicester and Nottingham .... The 2000 Guineas would have been long in the past before they started winning with the beast in mid-summer |
|
By:
Yes, ped, I'm not talking about high class racing. Usually when one is more heavily bet than expected in a better class race you can often see where the momentum has come from and that wouldn't alter my original opinion at all. However, there are courses like Kempton with weak markets, where a horse opens second fav at 3/1, on all known form looks like a 3/1 chance, isn't particularly tipped up commercially, but gets hammered into evens. Eddie Freemantle will invariably say this is too short (no offence to him as I'd usually agree). Then the horse wins like an odds on chance and the commentator will say "another one for favourite backers". Which always leaves me wondering does such a breed of punter exist?
|
|
By:
Aljamaheer today is a good example of a horse I have top rated but price is just about right on my program. The problem is I could not bring myself to back the likes of Premio Loco, Trade Storm or pastoral player if they went over my odds. I just dont fancy them. Maybe gelding could work on Aesops or cheek pieces on Trumpet but I'd rather sit race out unless Aljamaheer drifts to a backable price.
|
|
By:
Having said that, if I created a tissue that I was 100% sure was accurate and took into account everything then I'd bet the same way as Sankara.
|
|
By:
Pethers Moon is not the type I'm talking about. With that horse you can clearly see why it's been heavily backed/priced up short, arguably it could be underpriced. Strictly on figures I have Havana Cooler better in by 2lbs, so at the price it probably ought to be a bet for me, but then you factor in that Pethers Moon is probably capable of better and still on the upgrade. Whereas HM, while still lightly raced and open to improvement himself, appeared to have a harder race, leaving a lot of guesswork as to what will happen today.
|
|
By:
HC not HM.
|
|
By:
well like pedro I gave Pether's a huge rating at Salisbury and perhaps I was wrong to do so although the candy filly that finished 3rd that day pulled clear with an unexposed one at Newbury the other day. I had a big bet on at Ascot and I felt he would have won that day.
|