Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I bought the weekender this week for only the second time in about two years as I found the paper became surplus to my requirements as I use raceform interactive. I read the system column that Nick Mordin has written this week and decided to investigate the system for myself. He claims that following horses who have earned the comment 'tall' on its debut is profitable to follow for the rest of the 2yo year and lists 8 horses who have so far earned that comment on debut this year to follow; Amber Crystal, Arlecchino's Leap, Be Bold, Emef Rock, Franklin D, Kasb, Kibaar and White Lake.
I checked raceform interactive and these are the only 8 debutantes so far who have got 'tall' as a comment on their debut and the months in which they debuted are as follows:
March -
April - Amber Crystal, Arlecchino's Leap, Be Bold, Kasb, Kibaar
May - Emef Rock
Jun - Franklin D
Jul -
Aug - White Lake
When comparing this list to the full list from 2006 - 2013 the number of 'tall' debutantes of each month are:
March 4
April 9
May 25
Jun 7
Jul 16
Aug 16
Sep 42
Oct 53
Nov 4
In his article he says that Raceform used to provide physical descriptions for almost every horse on their debuts. In 1996 they did this for 2712 of 2236 2yo debutantes but so far this year have allocated physical descriptions to just 76 of the 1746 2yo debutantes. This set alarm bells ringing with me that physical descriptions are now allocated retrospectively more often than not after they have won a race and the 2yo's who end up not very good don't end up with a debutante physical description so it's obvious that this non-existent system is gonna show a profit. He has made the same claims before using RPR's as a predictive tool but in this age of computer databases where you can change history, Raceform go back and adjust historical RPR's dependent on how the runners in that race perform in the future so unless you use physical descriptions or RPR's at the time of the performance it is bordering on fraudulent to publish so called systems.
I checked raceform interactive and these are the only 8 debutantes so far who have got 'tall' as a comment on their debut and the months in which they debuted are as follows:
March -
April - Amber Crystal, Arlecchino's Leap, Be Bold, Kasb, Kibaar
May - Emef Rock
Jun - Franklin D
Jul -
Aug - White Lake
When comparing this list to the full list from 2006 - 2013 the number of 'tall' debutantes of each month are:
March 4
April 9
May 25
Jun 7
Jul 16
Aug 16
Sep 42
Oct 53
Nov 4
In his article he says that Raceform used to provide physical descriptions for almost every horse on their debuts. In 1996 they did this for 2712 of 2236 2yo debutantes but so far this year have allocated physical descriptions to just 76 of the 1746 2yo debutantes. This set alarm bells ringing with me that physical descriptions are now allocated retrospectively more often than not after they have won a race and the 2yo's who end up not very good don't end up with a debutante physical description so it's obvious that this non-existent system is gonna show a profit. He has made the same claims before using RPR's as a predictive tool but in this age of computer databases where you can change history, Raceform go back and adjust historical RPR's dependent on how the runners in that race perform in the future so unless you use physical descriptions or RPR's at the time of the performance it is bordering on fraudulent to publish so called systems.
Show More
It's also surely very odd that 4 of those 5 April tall debutantes made their debuts in the same race. Was Gary Bardwell working for them that day?
yes ged, I'm sure May, June July and August will fill up in time with future tall winners that debuted in those months thus improving a 'profitable' system
Mordin has come up with so much hilarious logic in the past but this could be his best yet!
didn't he have a similar system involving the description "good sort" a few years ago? That was a similar "license to print money" if you believed it (22-66, +153pts over jumps and a similar profi on the Flat). Perhaps all their racereaders realised they were so good at this paddock lark they all left RF to become pro punters?
yep, good sorts are harder to come by nowadays, number per flat season since 2006 : 49,17,4,3,3,2,0,0,1 .... the latest one being White Lake
Lol..presumably the paddock watcher who gave that a 'good sort' was all over the 25/1 SP 
Used to collect Mordin articles in Weekender but stopped about 12 months ago..pretty sure his well has run dry of ideas..plus he was still running his 'systems' over the last 15 yrs of form- the game is unrecognisable from 15 yrs ago and it is practically of no relevance whether his sytstem was making profits in 1999, 2000, 2001 etc. He's definitely been one of the more interesting writers down the years tho
Used to collect Mordin articles in Weekender but stopped about 12 months ago..pretty sure his well has run dry of ideas..plus he was still running his 'systems' over the last 15 yrs of form- the game is unrecognisable from 15 yrs ago and it is practically of no relevance whether his sytstem was making profits in 1999, 2000, 2001 etc. He's definitely been one of the more interesting writers down the years tho
Nick Morden and James Willougby should both be locked up in a padded cell,so they can both
bore the fcuk out of each other with their useless drivel.
bore the fcuk out of each other with their useless drivel.
There is actually some logic to what he is saying but those with a narrow mind tend to be quite dismissive and ridicule these kind of things if unable to work out the logic for themselves.
I would have thought that physical advantages tended to be far more significant when it comes to 2YOs with size and how early they were born compared to older horses and ones like Dilum and Celtic Swing seemed to have a distinct advantage due to their size as 2YOs, but this can reduce as the season goes on and/or the following season when the other horses have caught up physically.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a race isn't about how fast a horse's legs are moving as some horses actually look to be running faster than others, it's about which horse gets from the starting to the finishing line first and presumably even if having a slower leg speed, taller horses have a longer stride and so cover more ground than smaller ones, meaning they can go from start to finish in fewer strides but still keep up with and sometimes beat the smaller ones that seem to be going faster.
By the same token taller rangier horses with more scope might not handle some idiosyncratic courses like Chester, Epsom and Goodwood for example compared to smaller and more compact horses.
I would have thought that physical advantages tended to be far more significant when it comes to 2YOs with size and how early they were born compared to older horses and ones like Dilum and Celtic Swing seemed to have a distinct advantage due to their size as 2YOs, but this can reduce as the season goes on and/or the following season when the other horses have caught up physically.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a race isn't about how fast a horse's legs are moving as some horses actually look to be running faster than others, it's about which horse gets from the starting to the finishing line first and presumably even if having a slower leg speed, taller horses have a longer stride and so cover more ground than smaller ones, meaning they can go from start to finish in fewer strides but still keep up with and sometimes beat the smaller ones that seem to be going faster.
By the same token taller rangier horses with more scope might not handle some idiosyncratic courses like Chester, Epsom and Goodwood for example compared to smaller and more compact horses.
@grendel -- Raceform (at least since they were bought by the Racing Post) decided to save money by not paying for paddock inspectors at every meeting, which is why the old "good sort" system died. It is a shame as I found the Raceform paddock descriptions invaluable. Timeform's (at least back then) appeared to have been made from television pictures or possibly by drawing lots from a hat. It is a shame now that the Post and TV stations are back at every meeting that the practice cannot be revived.
@grendel re OP -- Mordin himself makes the point that Raceform paddock descriptions are now only given for the big meetings. Indeed, this underlies the logic of this week's article: that horses are being judged (presumably) against the cream of the crop.
it can work both ways . take selkerk the lad told me weeks before is debut this is a bull off a horse more like a 3 years old, he stated its ripping my arms off on the gallops, but he said its so big it might need the 1st run ! sluiced in at 33s 
did work at an equine center for years 2yr olds can have a huge physical advantage , as long as they have strengthened enough to suit their body mass .
interesting that provideo was thought to look more like a 3 yr old ! his birthday 24 hours after the dead line , so he was prob the oldest 2 yr old in training , 3-4 months older can be a huge atvantage for these young horses , even more so over 7f to a mile !
did work at an equine center for years 2yr olds can have a huge physical advantage , as long as they have strengthened enough to suit their body mass .interesting that provideo was thought to look more like a 3 yr old ! his birthday 24 hours after the dead line , so he was prob the oldest 2 yr old in training , 3-4 months older can be a huge atvantage for these young horses , even more so over 7f to a mile !
whether there is logic to what NM is saying or not, the whole thing falls apart if the descriptions are 'massaged' after the performance, as many suspect (ie good sort only goes on those that have won/shown obvious promise) or if they are as hilariously erratic as to have '4 of those 5 April tall debutantes made their debuts in the same race'...as i said earlier, NM is (for convenience, i imagine) in denial of the huge recent changes in the sport that makes data and systems from 10+ yrs ago irrelevant...it's obvious here that Raceform now issue physical descriptions for a small fraction of the horses that they used to (see OP), silly to be ploughing on as if that isnt the case
It would also surely be very relevant when, ON THE DAY, the physical comment was made. If you wait until it's gone past the post 10 clear before saying it's a 'good sort', or whatever, then the comment ceases to be a 'physical' comment, and is really just a form comment. It only has value as a physical comment if it can be honestly said to have been made before the horse ran So do/did Raceform guarantee that to be/have been the case? Obviously, if the physical comments have at least sometimes been added retrospectively, that strongly suggests not.
....the fact that White Lake appears alone amongst July/August's offerings smacks of aftertiming to me.
so far this century there have been 100 2yo's who have got 'tall' as a comment on debut, of those 100 debuts only 3 were wins, here are the strike rates per nth run of those 100:-
debut 3/100 3%
2nd 13/ 71 18%
3rd 12/ 44 27%
4th 6/ 31 19%
5th 5/ 23 22%
6th 2/ 18 11%
7th 2/ 9 22%
8th 1/ 7 14%
9th 2/ 3 67%
10th 0/ 2 0%
11th 0/ 1 0%
12th 1/ 1 100%
debut 3/100 3%
2nd 13/ 71 18%
3rd 12/ 44 27%
4th 6/ 31 19%
5th 5/ 23 22%
6th 2/ 18 11%
7th 2/ 9 22%
8th 1/ 7 14%
9th 2/ 3 67%
10th 0/ 2 0%
11th 0/ 1 0%
12th 1/ 1 100%
..well that kind of kills my comment about White Lake being an aftertime.
But I still find it hard to believe that he's the only July/August debutant(e) that's deserved a 'tall' comment, when 4 in the same race in April got one.
But I still find it hard to believe that he's the only July/August debutant(e) that's deserved a 'tall' comment, when 4 in the same race in April got one.
I think a lot of the physical descriptions are allocated in October maidens at Newmarket and Newbury where debutantes aren't really tried to win with and they're given to a lot of rags but these won't be included in the subsequent 2yo runs system as they don't run again as a 2yo, hence the very poor debut strike rate and the fact that 29 of the 100 didn't have a 2nd 2yo run. Maybe it's during these meetings that the retrospective allocating happens the most, if a Raceform paddock watcher judges physical descriptions of 2yo's racing in the better 2yo races at these back end meetings then they add these findings all the way back onto its maiden run in raceform interactive but the horse must've won a race or two since then to be contesting better 2yo races therefore guaranteeing a profitable 'system'
Number of 'tall' debuts by track:-
Ascot 2
Chester 1
Goodwood 10
Kempton(aw) 1
Lingfield (aw) 2
Newbury 25
Newmarket R 41
Newmarket J 5
Nottingham 2
Salisbury 6
Sandown 1
York 4
Number of 'tall' debuts by track:-
Ascot 2
Chester 1
Goodwood 10
Kempton(aw) 1
Lingfield (aw) 2
Newbury 25
Newmarket R 41
Newmarket J 5
Nottingham 2
Salisbury 6
Sandown 1
York 4
This is beginning to sound like the last Nick Mordin article I ever read, which must have been about 10 years ago, which was about Dosage Index being used to predict Derby winners - only with the added Mordin twist that they needed to have run in certain Newbury or Newmarket maidens, and have been trained by particular trainers - ie Stoute/Cecil/Cumani etc. (What, of course, he was doing, was looking back through lists of previous Derby winners, and picking out particular maiden races that they'd run in, and who had trained them, and, lo-and-behold, come up with a profitable system).
It was the same with an RPR sytem he came up with a couple of years ago, bacically the system was to back 2yo's in maidens who earned an RPR of 80 or more on its previous run. If you run the system through raceform interactive it does APPEAR to be a profitable system, the problem is the RPR that is initially allocated is subject to change dependent on the subsequent form of the race so an inital RPR of 82 could be downgraded to 78 if the form doesn't work out and vice versa could be upgraded from 78 to 82 if the first 3 go on to win a few races. I don't know whether Nick Mordin is oblivious to these fundamental flaws in his systems or he's being disingenuous just to keep himself in a cushy job churning these systems out. I have admired Nick Mordins work for years and he changed the way I thought about the game more than any other writer on the subject so to me he's a bit of a legend in this sphere but it's sad to see he's gone downhill in recent years.
I enjoy reading his articles which are always food for thought, even if I don't apply his ideas.
In my opinion the man is a genius to come up with more a less a different system almost EVERY week and has been doing so for how many years!
In my opinion the man is a genius to come up with more a less a different system almost EVERY week and has been doing so for how many years!
Interesting website for those interested in paddock watching:
http://www.b2yor.co.uk/
http://www.b2yor.co.uk/
I analysed about 50,000 horses in the paddock several years ago. There is no doubt there is a big edge to be had if you do it systematically. Punters bet thousands on horses when they have no idea if they are even fit. I only stopped doing it because my wife got ill and needed full time care.
grendel, the aftertiming comment was regards 'good sorts' not 'tall'...surely you cant call a horse tall when it isnt, but 'good sort' is much more subjective
Subject measurements are a complete waste of time for future betting. Its need to based on objective criteria to be added as a factor in the tissue.
You are talking only of the way you bet, frog2...many ways to skin a badger
Sure. I meant if you want to go back and use the data to build a model/system.
The market is generally inefficient to the paddock so if you go on course and can tell if a horse is fit subjectively you will generally get overs backing the fit ones/laying the unfit ones.
The market is generally inefficient to the paddock so if you go on course and can tell if a horse is fit subjectively you will generally get overs backing the fit ones/laying the unfit ones.
Was the case four or five years ago anyway. Might be efficient to it now. Haven't managed to get on course for a while.
DI, I'm not concerned with whether they win or lose on their debut runs and whether or not the description was allocated before the race or after as long as the information is available before the horses second run, the system is about subsequent runs and if this system is totally genuine then it is very profitable to follow horses who were described as tall on debut and White Lake has not had a second run yet so doesn't count in the system yet but his 2yo runs from now on do, as do Franklin D's future runs after being described as tall when 7th in the Chesham at 50/1. Whether they're tall or not is not the issue it's whether their physical description is reported and when it is allocated to their debut comments in running on Raceform Interactive.
frog.......a guy i knew from from the betting shop gave up his job to become a pro punter......he did look at stable form and their targeting of different races but his big edge was paddock watching.........for a year he made a large amount................his story is quite similiar to yours but in his case he had to stop because of the death of his father who he was living with.......the money he had made had to go to his brother for the house he lived in to avoid selling it.........he now has no car very litle money and was talking about going back to work when i last talked to him.....he has been to chepstow and ffos las but with very litle money train expenses getting in to the track it was impossible
'Tall' seems a very subective word to me, particularly when used to describe a 4-legged creature. Does it mean it's not very lengthy for its height? Does it mean it looks relatively lightly-built? Can it be both tall and big - or are those adjectives mutually exclusive in Raceform? if not, surely a big horse must also be a tall horse, at least for a thoroughbred, unless 'tall' means lightly-built.
Peter Crouch is undeniably 'tall' but if weighed 40 stone, would he still be 'tall'?
Peter Crouch is undeniably 'tall' but if weighed 40 stone, would he still be 'tall'?
value bets ya man
fitness gleaned from a dodgy TV screen whilst ya lay on the couch..
cant be beaten ...
fitness gleaned from a dodgy TV screen whilst ya lay on the couch..
cant be beaten ...
cardifffc,
Interesting story. It is very time consuming as well travelling to all the courses every day to get that edge from the paddock. It always amazed me on quiet days there would only be about 5 people round the paddock yet hundreds of thousands were being matched on here.
Interesting story. It is very time consuming as well travelling to all the courses every day to get that edge from the paddock. It always amazed me on quiet days there would only be about 5 people round the paddock yet hundreds of thousands were being matched on here.
frog.......last time i talked to him he was telling me that betting on here was impossible.........£50 min on the phone......he gave up a good job as a solicistor...if you seen him with his long hair and scruffy look you would never have thought......when his dad died he asked his brother to wait a year for the money .........he was ok about it but his brothers missus said no way...............the ironic thing is that hes not married probably never will so the brother will get the house if he out lives him.....i did tell him to leave it to a charity
Lord Ben Stack looks 'tall' on the telly, imo. Or is he 'big'?
grendel, there may have been slight confusion on my part as i didnt see that White Lake was called both 'tall' and 'good sort', your 15:30 post refers only to 'good sort'
that aside, my points have nothing to do with your particular system but NM in general
that aside, my points have nothing to do with your particular system but NM in general
grendel - really? - how would you describe him? - and perhaps more pertinently (or maybe not), how did raceform describe him on debut?
and anyone else, how would you describe the size of Lord Ben Stack - he looked on the big side to me.
and anyone else, how would you describe the size of Lord Ben Stack - he looked on the big side to me.
I was joking ged, I presumed your comment was sarcasm ... he didn't have a physical description on debut
...it seems whoever named him thought he was a big'un when they named him. Ben Stack is a mountain in Sutherland. Ben Stack himself won the 2 mile Champion Chase, so presumably that name was not allowed.
ah ok! new detector needed.
But if you were the raceform paddock watcher.... would you label him 'tall'?
But if you were the raceform paddock watcher.... would you label him 'tall'?
Well I reckon retrospectively he'll be a 'fine, big, lengthy good sort', now that he's stuffed some bluebloods in good style.
just rewound Ruk, yes he was the tallest, even Machin was describing him as tall before the race
yes DI, White Lake earned both 'tall' and 'Gd Sort', must be 2015 guineas winner!! ... my 15.30 post was only highlighting the paucity of gd sorts dished out by Raceform paddock watchers compared to previous years. My assertion that physical descriptions are allocated retrospectively is only a hypothesis at the moment and anyone who collects weekender form pullouts could help me solve it if they have April editions
'good sort' became like a Timeform Large P, particularly after NM had highlighted their record...it's only 'good sort' that i have had suspicions about being put on (or discarded) with the benefit of the result...there would be no reason to dish out close-coupled or leggy restrospectively!
Paddock watchers might have had a bit on Jelly, don't you think?
grendel - did all the debs in the Convivial get given physical descriptions?
grendel - did all the debs in the Convivial get given physical descriptions?
they all got either leggy, w'like or str except the second got lw and the winner got gd sort and tall
WELL Ivawood would have qualified first time up at sandown. and he hosed up looking like a 3yo
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539