Predicting outcomes is not possible due to unforeseen circumstances

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.

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.

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.

* or unexplainable lack of confidence, or more to the point, unexplainable confidence that one will run more poorly than its form chance.

They still happen but mostly lower class, especially AW.

I have my doubts about beating the market consistently these days.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Sandown, what type of strategy do you adopt now, as far as "winner" and / or "value" finding goes. Or is it somewhere in between?

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.

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.

be possible.

Sankara

I can identify with your strategy and agree with the problem of "missing one".

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.

thanks Sandown for that advice

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.

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.

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?)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

HC not HM.

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.

The Salisbury race I had, rightly or wrongly, as being out of line with some of the other races, so I have it as good but not that good.

if I created a tissue that I was 100% sure was accurate

This doesn't exist. The best l/t record will be BF SP by far. When pricing up your own tissue you are putting a mathematical slant on what is your own opinion so every tissue is personal to the individual creating it.Some it helps, others it doesn't. Not necessary imo to rate every horse in the race because plenty of evidence to suggest that the longer the list the more we will over-rate the less likely. Comes from good scientific research, by the way. So can rate outsiders en bloc.

That's probably your experience showing figgis. I'm still early days with speed figures and have often over rated horses by massive amounts but I think I'm getting there now.

What about Aesop's Fables though Sandown, been gelded since last time and won a G1 last season, trainer says in RP works like a class horse. But last 2 runs were stinkers. How can you price that up?

No bet for me in Aljameer's race, but the one I have top rated is Mull of Killough and I'd like to see him win. I think the improvement he found as a 6yo last year was very surprising, I reckon he's been underrated for his performances and is up to winning a Gp2 on his best, although that will obviously be difficult at the age of 7.

Lots of good racing everywhere today - badly planned - but none more interesting than the Grand Prix de Paris 6.20 Longchamp. Flintshire priced up at 2.7 on potential rather than form although Tres Blu just beaten in German Derby.

I haven't got any decent figures for Mull figgis. Which race do you have as his highest.

yes looks a very interesting race Sandown. You think there could be the Arc winner in there?

What about Aesop's Fables though Sandown, been gelded since last time and won a G1 last season, trainer says in RP works like a class horse. But last 2 runs were stinkers. How can you price that up?


That's a very good question Stevie because it illustrates why sometimes you have to take a view. Like Dawn Approach in the Derby. If it stayed it was an evens shot, if it didn't it was 10/1 or bigger.

Flintshire has the potential upside to be  a possible Arc ruunner, even winner. Don't think that BOM or Ocavango do AS YET.

I'm not 100% sure my tissue is right on every race stevie (in fact I'm 100% sure it's wrong on every race), but it doesn't need to be - it just needs to identify overpriced horses often enough to make a profit. And I don't agree with pricing up outsiders en bloc either - every horse has a chance of winning, especially in pattern races, so each should be priced up imo.

Aljamaheer is the likeliest winner today but I'm not convinced he stays a mile well and the possibility of a slow pace and messy race means 5-2 is very short. If he wins, fine, but there are plenty of others with chances in the race.

I will be a bit disappointed if BOM wins as I feel I know how good he is now and that's not really good enough for an arc.

I'm not 100% sure my tissue is right on every race stevie (in fact I'm 100% sure it's wrong on every race), but it doesn't need to be - it just needs to identify overpriced horses often enough to make a profit. And I don't agree with pricing up outsiders en bloc either - every horse has a chance of winning, especially in pattern races, so each should be priced up imo.

Aljamaheer is the likeliest winner today but I'm not convinced he stays a mile well and the possibility of a slow pace and messy race means 5-2 is very short. If he wins, fine, but there are plenty of others with chances in the race.

Manndawi looks well overpriced to me in the Flintshire race, much as I rate the favourite.

sorry internet problems so posted twice by mistake.

cheers sankara and GL today.

Stevie, the first big rating I gave him was in the Cambridgeshire, but then I had to wonder if partly it could've been that he was better at carrying big weights. Aware of that, I still thought he was worth a shout in the Darley Stakes where he bolted up. He was judged to have stolen the race and the comparative time wasn't great, but I couldn't have that race as being slowly run and in my view the ground had softened, affecting the final time. He didn't need to run to that mark to win his next race.

Yes I was one of the ones that thought he stole the race that day especially as I thought that rail was an advantage. I had backed French Navy in that race and remember him pulling hard which is what made me think it was a steady pace. Maybe I just haven't given him credit because he was a 6yo and pretty exposed did not think he could improve.

Oh I gave him a 105 in the cambridgeshire that's 8lb my Aljamaheer rating. That's the highest I have for him

*8lb behind

I don't agree with pricing up outsiders en bloc either - every horse has a chance of winning, especially in pattern races, so each should be priced up imo.

Can't argue that every horse doen't have its chance but let me illustrate what I mean. Suppoose you have say six horses which you price up at 50/1 equal to 12% of the book. from my research on this I'm sure that as a group they do not win 12% of the time butthat's not my main point. Whether each one should be say 33/1 or 100/1 is very difficult to be sure about as there is such only a 1% difference either way. The evidance, the facts cannot be that precise. After all, pricing up at 51% 50% or 49% is too close to call so why would it be any easier at a bigger price?In fact, they could be anwhere in between  33/1 and 100/1 and whether you are getting value  or not is not reliable.

Yes, I thought the same when I rated the Cambridgeshire. I was looking for ways to downgrade it but just had to conclude it was right. It's very unusual for me to find one at that level to improve at that age. I do think that often there isn't much, if anything, between the top class handicaps and some pattern races. I've seen many handicap performances that would've been good enough to win a Group race if only the horse had been entered.

Fair enough Sandown - I won't pretend mine is the only way to skin a cat.

that Mull Of Killoch ran very well Figgis. I definitely under estimated him

No result would surprise me in the Longchamp race, as none of them have shown top class form yet. I certainly wouldn't consider backing the fav, who finished impressively last time and could be anything, but that race was run at a pathetically slow pace. I'm surprised to see Ocovango shorter than BOM, as even though O'Brien's horse is below top class, he still sets the standard on public form and up to now has run better than Ocovango. Many times in these races we're hoping for a true star to emerge but often form such as BOM has shown proves good enough.

Winner looked very impressive again, but it appeared to be another French farce. Think I'd give up the game if our racing was constantly run like that.

Good horse that winner - excellent turn of foot. Manndawi will probably need a soft ground Arc if he's to close the gap.

One for the Arc short-list

no surprise to see he's gone favourite for the arc. was very impressive

The trouble is, though, Stevie, you couldn't really have a confident bet on him after having only those kinds of preps, well I couldn't anyway. Sure, those who make a book can keep him on side, but I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion that he's Arc winning standard.

Going back to the original post, it was interesting to hear after the Duchess of Cambridge Stakes that trainer George Margarson felt he had 'undercooked' Lucky Kristale before the Albany Stakes at Royal Ascot and that the only reason his filly was as big as 20/1 was because he trained her (adding that his bookmaker was 'not very happy').  But the key point about the race, for me, was that Rizeena represented poor value at around 5/4 (as I stated on another thread before the race): the Queen Mary was not a vintage renewal this year, I thought the Albany was a much better race, and I rated not only the reluctant Bye Bye Birdie ahead of Rizeena (at the weights) but Lucky Kristale only 3lbs behind her (again, at the weights).  I didn't back Lucky Kristale , though it's easy to see why (in retrospect) she was good value, but I did lay the favourite (at considerably bigger than 11/10, I might add!!).  I have gradually come round to the view that it is better to lay poor value favourites than back 'value' alternatives. 

Pether's Moon (Newmarket 5.35 today) was a classic example of an over-bet horse.  He endured a nightmare passage last time at Ascot but it's simply impossible to know whether he would have won (or gone close to winning) if Richard Hughes had managed to extricate him in time.  So he goes off 6/4 favourite today off the same handicap mark for a seemingly less competitive event and gets beaten by a lightly raced Cumani-trained maiden winner.  In the long run, you will be better off laying the likes of Pether's Moon (when they are short priced favourites) than backing them.

I would still rather back Flintshire than Al Kazeem Figgis. As I've seen enough of Al Kazeem to know he's not an arc winner imo but Flintshire has that bit of class about him.

Kind of agree James, as before Ascot the best fillies race on my figures was the Naas race in which Sandiva beat Heart focus with Fig Roll some way back in 3rd. So with fig roll finishing 3rd in the QM it does look better but I still got a good speed figure for the QM and Fig Roll I had running 11 lb better than at Naas. But perhaps I was wrong I may have to go back and look at it.

It is possible the ground was riding a shade quicker for the last races on hunt cup day and that is why Annecdote in the last got such a good rating as well so perhaps I did overate the QM.
Which also means I overrated the salisbury conditions race where Fig roll beat Alutiq and limegrove. I thought at the time Fig Roll had not run to form at Naas.

I'm still sure Rizeena didn't run to form, the signs were there as soon as the stalls opened. I don't know about the American horse but of the others close behind there was only One Chance that I rated higher than anything she had done before. It's a good idea to go back on your ratings when results don't pan out, but being too quick to revise the past just to suit the present can come back and bite you on the arse. As I know only too well when I've given a Johnston runner a big figure, watched it run dismally next time with my cash down, downgraded my rating then watched it storm home a race later unbacked.

These are very young horses, fast races can take their toll. Some will recover their form and some never will reach that level again. I wouldn't even be surprised if yesterday's winner goes the same way as Rizeena next time.

SG, I think that Fig Roll is much more effective at 6f than 5f: she was outpaced over the minimum trip on her second start before running on strongly to win at Salisbury, she was again outpaced in the Queen Mary and could never reach the leaders, but showed she was better at 6f when winning the Empress Stakes on 29 June (won going away at the finish).

Using Racing Post Ratings as a reference point, I thought that Rizeena (RPR 107) was overrated by about 7lbs for her Queen Mary win: I had her on about 100, using Ventura Mist and Alutiq as a guide.  Even so, I agree with Figgis that she may have run a bit below par yesterday.

Well even after changes I would still have Rizeena running below form yesterday but just by not as much as before. I think I may have been hasty giving Lucky Kristale a 106 which is 17 higher than her albany run I then changed allowance to lower rating for Heaven's Guest. so the changes could mean I have Rizeena 101 at Ascot and 93 yesterday.

Kiyoshi is definitely a better filly, she ran faster at Ascot, which is even more impressive as it was over 6f not 5f. I thought Sandiva would probably win the race, I still believe she ran slightly below par but on reflection I can see I'd slightly overrated her Naas run, easily done as there was only one falsely run 6f race to compare it with. I've not rated a filly as fast as Kiyoshi at this stage of the season before and therefore have serious doubts about her getting a mile next year. Again, I also don't think it's a given that she'll be able to keep up that kind of form.

Kiyoshi is by Dubawi out of a 10f winner (stayed 12f) and she's a half-sister to a winning hurdler, so I'm sure that she will stay at least a mile next year.  However, although I think Kiyoshi is the best two-year-old filly seen out so far this season, I do think that the Albany result needs treating with a bit of caution: they went a bit too quick through the early stages and the first four home all came from well off the pace.  Lucky Kristale, for example, raced more prominently than her trainer intended and could have finished closer if she had been ridden with a bit more restraint.

I'm happy with my Kiyoshi rating at 114 but I still have Sandiva as running 5lb below her Naas form so I'm sticking with her on 106. Rizeena now down to 101 for QM and Lucky Kristale 100 yesterday. And that is enough changes for one day.

Maybe she will stay, but when they run as fast as that as early as that I have to have doubts. My guess is she just won't train on.