|
By:
Of course form is my method but it isn't everything. If two horses have solid chances and I can't split them, providing it makes financial sense, I bet them both. I don't mind backing more than one horse in a race or using any method I can. If I can't split something and I can make more in the place market I go that way. Or if I can make more by laying opposition I think cannot win unless others under perform I go that way. There are lots of ways to skin a cat.
|
|
By:
so presumably you must spend a lot of time looking at videos and working out formlines in a racing publication, Brig?
|
|
By:
I can go with that brigust1 except for one thing. As a longtime cat lover I don't agree with the last sentence.
|
|
By:
no nay never is very fast horse, the damside doesnt look very strong, elusive quailitys broodmares havent won alot of money about 400k,
must say the horse made a good impression at royal ascot. hopefully they will keep the horse sprinting and wont turn up for the guineas. horse with a very good future ahead IMO. |
|
By:
I'd say the main reason I do my own ratings is I trust them and know how I arrived at the rating, before I did my own ratings I used RPRs as a guide or ORs in hcaps and the problem was in certain races like when the pace collapses and you get a wide margin winner I was scratching my head to how good the performance really was. I've found speed figures and sectionals have helped in rating horses better in races run at either a steady pace or an overly strong pace.
|
|
By:
Roadrunner, so you wouldn't give him much chance of staying the mile?
|
|
By:
Absolutely not Pedro. I've been doing this all my life. Written reams and reams. If I don't know now goodness me. I have put together a select group of rules and stick to them rigidly.
No races lower than Class 4. No handicaps, sellers or claimers. Only certain racecourses. Hardly ever bet Monday and Tuesday but that usually covers the courses I avoid. Are just a few. I can tell you at the beginning of the week my whole weeks possibilities. Me to Sandown. When my daughter moved in with her boyfriend she had to leave her to cats Cleo and Figaro. They are my responsibility now. |
|
By:
I'm sure you have been doing it all your life, Brig, but that didn't answer my question.
What exactly are you doing? How do you work out the formlines? How do you work out that Grandouet (for example) is better than the others? |
|
By:
Yes, Stevie, for some ratings you have to guess more than others and at least when you've done them yourself you know which ones are more iffy.
|
|
By:
and of course 2yo races and 3yo maidens etc figgis, without speed figures it can be very hard to assess how good the performances are with little form to go on.
|
|
By:
wouldnt know if the horse will stay a mile, pedigrees reads like a mile wont be a problem, from a visual aspect the horse
looks a sprinter to me, maybe next year in the sprint races the horse will win everything. not my skill set predicting distances horses will run better at, if need more evidence to seperate which horse will run better at a certain distance, just check the stallion page, look for the optimum distance the progeny win at, ACCLAMATION'S progeny are sprinters 5/6f that morning post was a crazy price for that big sales race. once ive learned more about pedigrees, just improves my overall knowledge. dont work that much on the pedigrees, racing has such a varied amount of things a person can look and learn from. always looking for horses that have shown good form, either they have been beaten recently in a good from race, or am just notebooking more future winners. |
|
By:
Pedro I watch, listen and learn. By limiting the races I potentially bet in I can concentrate more on the ones I do bet in.
I don't write anything down now except my accounts. I remind myself occasionally by referring to the form book and keep an eye on the Official ratings but they are often wrong. Take Somersby for example. He has been rated 170 when running in Group races but before running in Group races he was beaten in a handicap off 156 and last time out narrowly won his only handicap since off 155. So what rating is he? You can often decide whether or not there are too many possible winners etc. I have no intention of wasting my time. I would be unable to cover every point but often the decision to consider a race takes seconds not minutes to decide. |
|
By:
Can't think of many times the guineas has been won by a horse who has looked a sprinter and been fast enough to win the Norfolk stakes. You see plenty of future top class 10f horses winning it and milers but never have I seen a sprinter last it out.
|
|
By:
Roadrunner, I also think he's very good. I find it really difficult to judge if a sprint 2yo will make it to the top as a 3yo, as, for me, that is one division where they really do need to make significant improvement to beat the best older sprinters. He already looked like a 3yo to me so I don't know if he'll progress much more. In his favour he hasn't been overraced compared to some fast 2yos over the years. If I thought he'd stay the mile I'd definitely have to back him for the Guineas but my guess is it's probably unlikely.
|
|
By:
Pedro I watch, listen and learn.
Brig, apologies if I am being pedantic, but that sounds very vague. Julian Wilson once told me the same thing when I asked him for some advice. You're not him are you? How for example did you view Kingman's winning maiden at Newmarket? Did you think he was any good? an 80 type? Group class? A potential classic winner? Still don't understand how you assess one horse is better than another. |
|
By:
Although Dutch Art was a norfolk winner and he did win his group when 3rd in Cockney Rebel's Guineas.
|
|
By:
Just had a look back through past Norfolk winners, as it's not a race I have a particularly good memory for. Dutch Art finished 3rd to Cockney Rebel before being dropped back in trip. The only winner I can see that definitely stayed a mile was the mudlover Turtle Island.
|
|
By:
Also, even though I wouldn't label him a tearaway, as he appears to settle well in front, he does take a keen grip, can't see that help him getting a couple of furlongs further unless they've managed to work on that at home.
|
|
By:
Having returned unscathed from that historic performance, Ward thinks it is the perfect time to give the Coolmore-owned juvenile a well-deserved rest before working towards a return trip to Britain in 2014.
Ward said: "We've got big plans for him next year and it's nice to give him a break while he's sound and has no issues. This way we'll have a healthy tiger for next year." Looking to next season, when No Nay Never will be campaigned at 1m, he added: "The ultimate goal would be the St James's Palace Stakes and we'll work from there backwards. "We'd look to run at Keeneland first, when they open up the gates at the end of March or beginning of April, and I wouldn't rule out the Guineas. A straight mile at Newmarket in early May would be beautiful, but we'd get a run into him first to see where we're at. We are already excited about coming back." |
|
By:
Pedro I can assre you if you have any sense the bets pick themselves.
The Dewhurst was a 2 horse race you just had to wager to get the best out of it. Some of the Breeders Cup races were the same. Keep you bets few and be diligent. Don't take unnecessary risks. It may sound boring but winning isn't I can assure you. Sometimes you lose obviously but that's inevitable. Just keep them to a minimum. Like everyone I do have odd mad bets sometimes but I like to think thee is method in my madness. |
|
By:
Stevie, from those connections' comments they don't appear to harbour doubts over the trip. As an American trained horse it also adds to the confusion. I don't follow their racing closely but I've read most of the books in the past and it seems it's far more likely for a prospective miler to be campaigned over 6f as a 2yo there, whereas over here it would be more likely to be stepped up to 7f.
|
|
By:
some good chat
just on the subject on american speed figures do people think it us much easier to rate american racing with most races run on the same type tracks and mostly run on fast tracks...american handicappers unless facing sloppy tracks or polytrack can build very solid speed ratings will be very reliable...obviously there are biases in the tracks depending where you race, similar to over here with the aw weather tracks... track biases, over watering, different goings, unconventional tracks surely make it far easier to compile american speed figures compared with doing speed ratings here, unless we are talking aw racing that is. do you boys find that your speed figures are more solid in regards aw racing in comparison to your turf racing?? or are you happy profit wise/reliability wise with both? |
|
By:
Harry, I can only speak personally but there's no difference between rating on turf and polytrack. There is a wider range of going allowances on the turf, obviously the turf can get much slower but generally it isn't a problem, although it can be trickier when there is constant rain during an afternoon. When it rains on polytrack it can slow the surface but I've also known it speed it up, so that's an added problem you don't get on turf. Also wind can affect the all weather tracks like it can turf and that's not always accounted for. As for Southwell, I've read that some people think it's more reliable for rating times, personally I find it worse than turf, I find that the surface can change significantly between races on the same afternoon, all the harrowing doesn't help. There can also be pace collapses and a winner can look better than it is. I don't know about dirt racing, some people say it compares mostly with Southwell, if that's the case I reckon time rating on dirt probably has more nuances than is implied. Overall I prefer turf simply because it's mostly a better class of racing which I find more reliable.
|
|
By:
figgis i suppose this was always going to be a complex question, as obviously americans are running top class horses on the dirt, so are more reliable class wise...also the tracks are the same, although obviously track biases inside and outside will always lead to differing figures
my other point was the tracks are all the same flat left handed, the same problem with harrowing will still occur...i find southwell more reliable betting wise but only on the fact of horses acting at the track... i suppose the figures will always be solid on fast ground/conventional tracks...but do you find your ratings stand up solidly on all the differing ground??...by this i mean in the horses next start or do you find big differences in your rating, obviously making the rating less reliable?? or do you need the next start to confirm your figure |
|
By:
I prefer compiling them on polytrack Harry especially over the winter when alot of the same horses run at each meeting and one allowance normally works although I do adjust for wind sometimes.
Southwell I use a lower allowance and the ratings seem ok, but you can get horses making all at a fast pace but still nothing gets into because of the bad kickback. I like it best for betting purposes though as very easy to narrow horses down and I tend to concentrate on previous southwell form or horses bred for surface. On turf there are certain courses I don't like and I generally prefer the better class meetings. In fact some of the lower grade meetings on bog heavy ground at the end of the season I couldn't be bother rating. |
|
By:
Harry, for me it doesn't matter that the tracks are more varied here, as long as you have a reliable set of standard times (no easy task) then the track variations are accounted for. I agree about Southwell being reliable betting wise because of track form. Ground is obviously a consideration, if a horse earned its rating on good to firm I wouldn't assume it can replicate it on soft (and vice versa), but I don't insist on the ground having to be exactly the same. If a rating is based on only one run, say, a lightly raced horse or a big improvement on what a horse has achieved before then there has to be more doubt than if a horse has other similar ratings to back it up. Also, when you rate some cards you know that the ratings are more reliable, the races have been well run and there are enough exposed runners to get a handle on things. Others are more ambiguous and you have to take more of a view. As for how reliable they are, it's all down to experience, after refining the method over the years I find I have less variations between figures than I used to have, not as many huge leaps in improvement.
|
|
By:
On turf there are certain courses I don't like and I generally prefer the better class meetings. In fact some of the lower grade meetings on bog heavy ground at the end of the season I couldn't be bother rating.
really i suppose this is what i was trying to get at in regards tracks and the reliability/confidence you still have in your speed ratings when we get to the point of differing ground and the biases, obviously with horses racing up different sides and such in comparison with say american handicappers who don't face these issues except biases in the track and where the horses have raced...over watering and such/harrowing will still occur on dirt but will soon become apparent after a couple of races in regards, speed biases thus giving a bettor an edge...same occurs here though i suppose to a degree an american handicapper/speed ratings handicapper doesn't face undulating tracks, over watering, horses running up different sides and a lot more that we face over here...betting angles are still there but can you still rely on your figures when racing on differing ground agree figgis no easy task i suppose that is what i am trying to get at in regards reliability in your betting/figures...only you will know how your figure stands up...you might get a solid figure at one track and then the horse will face good ground and an undulating track...lets say we are using reliable handicappers here, in this instance as an example who had at least 8 lifetime starts...when do your figures become unreliable...this will help you as a bettor and help me moving forwards...just interested the reason i am keen is because i have found sep/oct/nov very difficult profit/betting wise for me and interested to know how your betting/speed ratings are stacking up in these periods |
|
By:
Of course the easier it is to do the figures then the more likely it is that others will find the same. I find a lot of the obvious speed figures ie several races over same c/d and 1 standout time. those types end up overbet.
|
|
By:
Stevie G
Whatever method you use to compile ratings, you need to anchor, whether its the race standard, another horse in the race or a going allowance. If you use separate going allowances to adjust for wind or whatever, what makes you think that you are doing anything other than guessing. A going allowance is risky enough to produce when using several/all the races but an individual allowance for an individual race? Really? Don't you risk giving ratings which you think/want to see? The more variables you introduce the greater the potential error on the "degrees of freedom principle." Agree? |
|
By:
Yes, agree with Stevie on the overbet point. I also think I can sometimes spot when one is likely to be overrated by the majority and I might oppose it. For example I think Hot Streak's Cornwallis win was overrated elsewhere, it was decent but I don't think it was as good as it looked. If he's short when taking on his elders next season I'll be looking to oppose him.
Harry, I don't find my figures are less reliable during those months but other factors come into play, like you say there is the ground, but there is also the possibility some horses have had a few runs and already peaked by then whereas others will be still on an upward curve. I'll often oppose one I rate higher if I think it's done enough already, which sometimes bites me on the arse but I still think overall it pays to take that into account. |
|
By:
Sandown,
If you've checked the sectionals and watched the race and the pace appears sound but it's a windy day or it's a drying day and a minor adjustment fits a race then I favour that to just leaving the race as it is. I do have a calculation I use based on wind direction and speed and they have hourly updates on the met office site. Again with with ground being quicker on the first race of the card yes I take a guess sometimes but the alternative would be to have a 1 good figure for the first race and the rest all looking slower by about 10lb. Now If all the rest fit apart from the first race then it's reasonable to assume the ground slowed. |
|
By:
Sandown,
If you've checked the sectionals and watched the race and the pace appears sound but it's a windy day or it's a drying day and a minor adjustment fits a race then I favour that to just leaving the race as it is. I do have a calculation I use based on wind direction and speed and they have hourly updates on the met office site. Again with with ground being quicker on the first race of the card yes I take a guess sometimes but the alternative would be to have a 1 good figure for the first race and the rest all looking slower by about 10lb. Now If all the rest fit apart from the first race then it's reasonable to assume the ground slowed. |
|
By:
Stevie, for me, of course the more allowances that are used then there is more margin for error, but the truth is that even using only one allowance requires judgement and the possibility that you're imposing an allowance just to suit your view. It's all about experience. I wouldn't advise a novice to complicate the procedure of arriving at an allowance, but the simplest way is not always the most accurate way, particularly with somebody more practised in what they're doing.
|
|
By:
Sandown,
What do you make of Hinterland running 2.5s quicker than Sire De Grugy today? Do you do sectionals for the jumps? Do you think they possibly went a bit too quick in the latter race? |
|
By:
I'm interested to know how others rate No Nay Never compared to Hot Streak, whether it's speed or handicap ratings? I see that Timeform have rated Hot Streak 2lbs higher, which was apparently influenced by their high timefigure for him. I have No Nay Never 5lbs higher than Hot Streak.
|
|
By:
Figgis, I have Hot streak 8lb higher than No Nay Never though I don't like softish ground at Ascot and I don't trust that figure entirely, he ran nowhere near it next time and Outer Space and Kickboxer didn't run well either but that Ascot race was a tough test at a strong pace so maybe the horses hadn't quite recovered. Also I'm sure No Nay Never is better than the figure I gave him, I think he is capable of running about 5lb higher.
If they were to meet at Ascot over 5f on soft ground I'd make Hot Streak the likliest winner. 6f good ground I'd make No Nay Never a strong fav. |
|
By:
Stevie, I thought the ground was no worse than good that day at Ascot, particularly for the first 2 races, although I do sometimes think that if the ground is soft on top it might have more effect on some runners than the times suggest.
|
|
By:
113 - Hot Streak
107 - No Nay Never |
|
By:
My allowance suggested just on the slow side of good at worst but to me it looked tiring ground. Thinking back I think on the friday of the meeting there was a strong headwind and the saturday less of a wind. The last 3 races on the card were also much slower than I was expecting, so rating Hot Streak was not easy, I did have a good figure for Kickboxer at Haydock and Musical Comedy has boosted that form so I'm quite happy KB ran a career best that day held up off the strong pace. Some of the others like Extrortionist and Excels Beauty finished slowly and clearly ran below previous figures.
|
|
By:
Yes, I also have the latter races slower. I'm sure I would've rated Hot Streak much higher when I started doing this and probably would've smashed into him in the Middle Park. Of course, if he'd gone on to win well at Newmarket I would've realised my error at Ascot and readjusted him to a higher figure but in light of his run I'm inclined to think I got it right first time this time. Sometimes I make a judgement on an allowance and it's wrong, sometimes in hindsight I find I've overcomplicated it and added an extra allowance where it wasn't needed, but overall I find the benefits far outweigh the negatives instead of sticking to the simple method.
|