Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
can anyone please tell me where i can access these, without subscribing to the RP Membership ?
thanks in advance.
thanks in advance.
Show More
the betting habits to avoid
1 of 1
UPDATED 3:25PM, APR 1 2020
In the concluding part of our Betting Masterclass series, four Racing Post experts give their advice on the pitfalls of punting . . .
Do not be tempted to bet outside your lane
You can bet on anything and everything now, but that does not mean you should. Yes it can be a bit of fun to have a monetary interest in some live sport you're watching, or say a reality show, but the emphasis should be on the fun when staking if it is not a discipline you are familiar with.
To be a consistently successful punter, you have to put in the hard yards and hone your form study and any systems you want to use. Like everything in life, practice makes perfect. So with that in mind, when looking at a typical day's racing, I am not naive enough to think I can be an expert on every race.
There are so many facets to the sport that, for me, specialising is key. I focus on the juvenile division each year on the Flat, and when the Flat turf season ends, switch my attention to the all-weather during the winter. Even then, it will be rare for me to have more than half a dozen bets, even on extremely busy days.
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
The reasons for doing this are numerous. One of the most important is time. Watching race replays, making notes and adding horses to trackers all adds up. But if you are only concentrating on a selection of races rather than trying to take a view on every contest, you can dedicate more hours to what you are studying – watch a big-field maiden several times rather than once or twice – and build a more nuanced opinion rather than a general overview.
Specialising leads to being able to keep track of your favoured area more easily, and with that should come increased chances to find winners. With juveniles for example, there will be newcomers who are heavily backed. Perhaps because of pedigree, reputation or because they are reported to have been burning up the gallops.
But rather than follow these talking horses blindly, you might know that among the opposition is a runner with proven form that will provide a stiff test for any newcomer but could be overpriced.
On the all-weather, it is well known that the pool of horses in the winter is not that large and patterns emerge, with certain horses winning in their turn. If you are following the code closely, it can be a profitable time of year.
Also, if you are trying to keep track of lots of races and placing bets accordingly, you run the risk of racking up losses quickly. This is another reason why I do not bet on anything and everything. You should always bet within your means, and no matter what size your bank is you should use it as effectively as possible.
It is far better to have a punt on something you have researched thoroughly and can take an informed view on, rather than frittering away money on a hunch or because of boredom.
Speaking personally, I take far more satisfaction from correctly figuring out a race and finding the winner, than pinsticking for the sake of having a bet.
David Baxter
Don't change your opinion because of market moves
The vast majority of punters devote hours of their spare time to analyse individual races, especially at the big meetings like the Cheltenham Festival and Royal Ascot, as they prepare and aspire to 'chop it off' and beat the bookmakers.
It is clearly the best way to try to win in this game - studying trends, statistics and form are fundamental in deciphering which horse will come out on top, and noticing an angle, which can only be done from divulging yourself in the aforementioned factors, can separate your opinion from the one of the market. But sometimes all of that just goes straight out of the window.
However, on a regular basis punters decide to disregard all of their knowledge and research in a split second when they see their fancy drifting in price on the day of the race. Instead, plumping for a rival that wasn't even included on their initial shortlist because they have been dramatically shortened in betting, thus giving the impression that you might have missed something.
How often does that punting technique work? Not very often. Following market springers and drifters and changing your opinion accordingly is a foolish approach, not only because of the wasted hours and ignorance, but also the fact that by the time you realise the market tendencies, the value is likely to be long gone on the steamers.
If you make a runner around a 7-1 chance, then see you got that spot on, and then they are backed into around half the price before the off, there is no reason whatsoever to join in with the gamble. That would be trusting other people's judgements over your own and thus scrapping your wisdom in one click of a button.
Obviously there are certain exceptions to the point, such as if the horse was trained by Charles Byrnes and Denis Hogan over in Ireland or Stuart Williams and Mick Appleby on the Flat in Britain. When gambling yards get stuck into their own runners you have to keep an eye out, but even then the success strike-rate is limited and you would have to get on before they do to make any kind of notable profit.
The biggest draw to betting on horseracing is that there are so many imponderables and deciding factors in any individual contest.
Take this year's Triumph Hurdle. I was adamant that Goshen, trained by Gary Moore, could come under siege due to his right-handed jumping, average look to his form and the fact he would be going some clip from the outset in a fast-run race.
I was wrong. He was by far the best horse in that field and looked to be winning by a significant margin as he flew into the Cheltenham homestraight. However, he tripped himself up on landing after the last, causing Jamie Moore to be unseated, thus rewarding me for laying him. If I followed the market, I would have been cursing at that moment.
Horseracing is a game full of opinions and once you have formed yours, it is wise to stick to it. Market moves remain of serious interest but drifters do win races, and runners that are punted don't win them all.
Tom Collins
Don't jump in at the wrong price
Getting the value is essential when trying to make consistent profit. With bookmakers slowly moving the goalposts on the best odds guaranteed markets, it is more important than ever to understand the market you are looking to bet on.
Whatever my bet, whether it is tackling a handicap, assessing a Group 1 or weighing up an ante-post bet, the first thing that I do is try to price up the race without the influence of pre-existing odds. This identifies a number of things. You have worked out who you think should be favourite and you have a base model for the rest of the field.
Once I have priced up the race, then I look at the bookmakers' odds and compare. You'll find, especially with some of the big Flat handicaps with lots of unexposed types in the field, that there are a number of anomalies. Some will be shorter than you had predicted and some will be bigger.
Naturally you will find your most likely winner when studying the form, but it is important to hold fire if that horse is significantly shorter than you had predicted. Likewise, if the horse you fancy is considerably bigger than you had predicted then don't be put off backing it – especially if you are looking to place a bet ante-post or the night before as this is the time the markets are just coming into shape, this is often your time to strike.
One thing to understand however, is that a market for a race can change significantly from the Tuesday before a race and after declarations. You may have identified your horse midweek and decided to not to play ante-post as they may have been a doubtful runner. It is important not to be put off if he is half the price he was. Repeat the process and price up the declared runners. This will give you an idea whether he or she is still value.
There is no worse feeling than fancying one ante-post, deciding to not to play and then backing something else because your original selection has shortened. It is a game of you against the bookie and you should trust your own judgement rather than be swayed by theirs.
Tom Park
Do not take any of this too literally
Don't you just hate a plot twist? Two weeks and a novella's worth of invaluable racing advice later, the final word is that everything you have read up to now should be used advisedly, at least at first.
This is in no way asking you to ignore even a word of this series. It has been not only lower-mantle deep, but broad, covering angles as wide-ranging as trainer stats to paddock watching, playing in-running on Betfair to becoming an ante-post sniper.
I can honestly say that I have drawn a considerable amount from what has been written by other contributors to the Betting Masterclasses, with some of whom I have been discussing betting on horses for years.
Ultimately, the advice all comes back to what is personally regarded as rule number one of being a horse racing punter: there are no rules that cannot be broken.
As an example: I was trained, virtually indoctrinated, to ignore stats and trends in racing. It was only once I had a few racecourse conflabs with Andrew Mount that the utility of stats became not only justified, but obvious. They are insightful and dispassionate, which is what all angles would be in an ideal world.
The reason stats get a bad rap in certain circles is because they are commonly misused. For instance, favourites having a poor record in the Midlands National (one winner and one placed since 2008) is definitely a bad stat. Would Christmas In April have dotted up, and Truckers Lodge pulled up, had a bit of late money or a slightly different pool of bookies being used to calculate SPs flipped them around? Of course not. You can't curse a race.
While my own approach to stats has warmed, I still use them sparingly. And every time I see one put up as significant, I make a point of rationalising it before I take it to heart. It is how punters should treat any information put in front of them, regardless of source. It is the best way to develop our instincts.
As a quick example, one of the first stats Mount showed me was Definitly Red's record in small fields (he is 12-20 when facing seven or fewer rivals, 3-14 otherwise). This is rational, for a few reasons: his level of ability, which maxes out below the generally bigger-field championship races; his jumping, which can get scratchy if he is crowded; and his regular rider, the ever-enterprising Danny Cook. It is fair to say he was not on my list for the Grand National.
On the other hand, handicapping has always been the cornerstone of my punting. But not all handicap ratings are equal, even if they are so numerically. I will often back a jumps horse in the early-autumn whose winter form is ostensibly worse than that of horses who have been racing through the summer. Winter form just tends to be stronger. Ditto the Flat and turf versus all-weather.
If this series has taught its readers one thing, it is that serious punters should be specialists. But that is only in terms of the races and horses on which we should focus. When it comes to deciding on our bets, we should paint with as colourful a palette as possible. Learn from all of our contributors, not just one. I know I have.
Keith Melrose
1 of 1
UPDATED 3:25PM, APR 1 2020
In the concluding part of our Betting Masterclass series, four Racing Post experts give their advice on the pitfalls of punting . . .
Do not be tempted to bet outside your lane
You can bet on anything and everything now, but that does not mean you should. Yes it can be a bit of fun to have a monetary interest in some live sport you're watching, or say a reality show, but the emphasis should be on the fun when staking if it is not a discipline you are familiar with.
To be a consistently successful punter, you have to put in the hard yards and hone your form study and any systems you want to use. Like everything in life, practice makes perfect. So with that in mind, when looking at a typical day's racing, I am not naive enough to think I can be an expert on every race.
There are so many facets to the sport that, for me, specialising is key. I focus on the juvenile division each year on the Flat, and when the Flat turf season ends, switch my attention to the all-weather during the winter. Even then, it will be rare for me to have more than half a dozen bets, even on extremely busy days.
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
The reasons for doing this are numerous. One of the most important is time. Watching race replays, making notes and adding horses to trackers all adds up. But if you are only concentrating on a selection of races rather than trying to take a view on every contest, you can dedicate more hours to what you are studying – watch a big-field maiden several times rather than once or twice – and build a more nuanced opinion rather than a general overview.
Specialising leads to being able to keep track of your favoured area more easily, and with that should come increased chances to find winners. With juveniles for example, there will be newcomers who are heavily backed. Perhaps because of pedigree, reputation or because they are reported to have been burning up the gallops.
But rather than follow these talking horses blindly, you might know that among the opposition is a runner with proven form that will provide a stiff test for any newcomer but could be overpriced.
On the all-weather, it is well known that the pool of horses in the winter is not that large and patterns emerge, with certain horses winning in their turn. If you are following the code closely, it can be a profitable time of year.
Also, if you are trying to keep track of lots of races and placing bets accordingly, you run the risk of racking up losses quickly. This is another reason why I do not bet on anything and everything. You should always bet within your means, and no matter what size your bank is you should use it as effectively as possible.
It is far better to have a punt on something you have researched thoroughly and can take an informed view on, rather than frittering away money on a hunch or because of boredom.
Speaking personally, I take far more satisfaction from correctly figuring out a race and finding the winner, than pinsticking for the sake of having a bet.
David Baxter
Don't change your opinion because of market moves
The vast majority of punters devote hours of their spare time to analyse individual races, especially at the big meetings like the Cheltenham Festival and Royal Ascot, as they prepare and aspire to 'chop it off' and beat the bookmakers.
It is clearly the best way to try to win in this game - studying trends, statistics and form are fundamental in deciphering which horse will come out on top, and noticing an angle, which can only be done from divulging yourself in the aforementioned factors, can separate your opinion from the one of the market. But sometimes all of that just goes straight out of the window.
However, on a regular basis punters decide to disregard all of their knowledge and research in a split second when they see their fancy drifting in price on the day of the race. Instead, plumping for a rival that wasn't even included on their initial shortlist because they have been dramatically shortened in betting, thus giving the impression that you might have missed something.
How often does that punting technique work? Not very often. Following market springers and drifters and changing your opinion accordingly is a foolish approach, not only because of the wasted hours and ignorance, but also the fact that by the time you realise the market tendencies, the value is likely to be long gone on the steamers.
If you make a runner around a 7-1 chance, then see you got that spot on, and then they are backed into around half the price before the off, there is no reason whatsoever to join in with the gamble. That would be trusting other people's judgements over your own and thus scrapping your wisdom in one click of a button.
Obviously there are certain exceptions to the point, such as if the horse was trained by Charles Byrnes and Denis Hogan over in Ireland or Stuart Williams and Mick Appleby on the Flat in Britain. When gambling yards get stuck into their own runners you have to keep an eye out, but even then the success strike-rate is limited and you would have to get on before they do to make any kind of notable profit.
The biggest draw to betting on horseracing is that there are so many imponderables and deciding factors in any individual contest.
Take this year's Triumph Hurdle. I was adamant that Goshen, trained by Gary Moore, could come under siege due to his right-handed jumping, average look to his form and the fact he would be going some clip from the outset in a fast-run race.
I was wrong. He was by far the best horse in that field and looked to be winning by a significant margin as he flew into the Cheltenham homestraight. However, he tripped himself up on landing after the last, causing Jamie Moore to be unseated, thus rewarding me for laying him. If I followed the market, I would have been cursing at that moment.
Horseracing is a game full of opinions and once you have formed yours, it is wise to stick to it. Market moves remain of serious interest but drifters do win races, and runners that are punted don't win them all.
Tom Collins
Don't jump in at the wrong price
Getting the value is essential when trying to make consistent profit. With bookmakers slowly moving the goalposts on the best odds guaranteed markets, it is more important than ever to understand the market you are looking to bet on.
Whatever my bet, whether it is tackling a handicap, assessing a Group 1 or weighing up an ante-post bet, the first thing that I do is try to price up the race without the influence of pre-existing odds. This identifies a number of things. You have worked out who you think should be favourite and you have a base model for the rest of the field.
Once I have priced up the race, then I look at the bookmakers' odds and compare. You'll find, especially with some of the big Flat handicaps with lots of unexposed types in the field, that there are a number of anomalies. Some will be shorter than you had predicted and some will be bigger.
Naturally you will find your most likely winner when studying the form, but it is important to hold fire if that horse is significantly shorter than you had predicted. Likewise, if the horse you fancy is considerably bigger than you had predicted then don't be put off backing it – especially if you are looking to place a bet ante-post or the night before as this is the time the markets are just coming into shape, this is often your time to strike.
One thing to understand however, is that a market for a race can change significantly from the Tuesday before a race and after declarations. You may have identified your horse midweek and decided to not to play ante-post as they may have been a doubtful runner. It is important not to be put off if he is half the price he was. Repeat the process and price up the declared runners. This will give you an idea whether he or she is still value.
There is no worse feeling than fancying one ante-post, deciding to not to play and then backing something else because your original selection has shortened. It is a game of you against the bookie and you should trust your own judgement rather than be swayed by theirs.
Tom Park
Do not take any of this too literally
Don't you just hate a plot twist? Two weeks and a novella's worth of invaluable racing advice later, the final word is that everything you have read up to now should be used advisedly, at least at first.
This is in no way asking you to ignore even a word of this series. It has been not only lower-mantle deep, but broad, covering angles as wide-ranging as trainer stats to paddock watching, playing in-running on Betfair to becoming an ante-post sniper.
I can honestly say that I have drawn a considerable amount from what has been written by other contributors to the Betting Masterclasses, with some of whom I have been discussing betting on horses for years.
Ultimately, the advice all comes back to what is personally regarded as rule number one of being a horse racing punter: there are no rules that cannot be broken.
As an example: I was trained, virtually indoctrinated, to ignore stats and trends in racing. It was only once I had a few racecourse conflabs with Andrew Mount that the utility of stats became not only justified, but obvious. They are insightful and dispassionate, which is what all angles would be in an ideal world.
The reason stats get a bad rap in certain circles is because they are commonly misused. For instance, favourites having a poor record in the Midlands National (one winner and one placed since 2008) is definitely a bad stat. Would Christmas In April have dotted up, and Truckers Lodge pulled up, had a bit of late money or a slightly different pool of bookies being used to calculate SPs flipped them around? Of course not. You can't curse a race.
While my own approach to stats has warmed, I still use them sparingly. And every time I see one put up as significant, I make a point of rationalising it before I take it to heart. It is how punters should treat any information put in front of them, regardless of source. It is the best way to develop our instincts.
As a quick example, one of the first stats Mount showed me was Definitly Red's record in small fields (he is 12-20 when facing seven or fewer rivals, 3-14 otherwise). This is rational, for a few reasons: his level of ability, which maxes out below the generally bigger-field championship races; his jumping, which can get scratchy if he is crowded; and his regular rider, the ever-enterprising Danny Cook. It is fair to say he was not on my list for the Grand National.
On the other hand, handicapping has always been the cornerstone of my punting. But not all handicap ratings are equal, even if they are so numerically. I will often back a jumps horse in the early-autumn whose winter form is ostensibly worse than that of horses who have been racing through the summer. Winter form just tends to be stronger. Ditto the Flat and turf versus all-weather.
If this series has taught its readers one thing, it is that serious punters should be specialists. But that is only in terms of the races and horses on which we should focus. When it comes to deciding on our bets, we should paint with as colourful a palette as possible. Learn from all of our contributors, not just one. I know I have.
Keith Melrose
the odds on offer months in advance
1 of 1
UPDATED 8:45PM, MAR 27 2020
Given there is no British or Irish racing for the foreseeable future, this seems as good a time as any to discuss ante-post betting.
It's a form of betting that seems to be losing its popularity, with many pundits in recent years declaring "ante-post betting is dead", and there are reasons for that.
The most obvious one is that bookmakers over the last few years have become ever tighter with their margins and quotes for horses for big races.
There was a time many years ago when the winner of a trial for a big race was given a reasonable and considered quote for the big target, but nowadays the job for bookmakers' representatives – and many don't even have them at the racecourse for all but the big days now – is getting their company's name mentioned.
There are two ways of doing that – offer the best price in the marketplace, or offer the worst.
Offering the best has the obvious drawback of tempting people to bet, building up a liability you don't necessarily want and getting criticised for not holding the price for more than five minutes.
Going short is much less of a risk, although we can be thankful for having some quality commentators on our racing channels who at least try to keep the layers honest – the likes of RTV's Lydia Hislop, Steve Mellish and Jonathan Neesom readily spring to mind as those well prepared to ridicule live the more paltry offerings that are sent their way.
RTV's Lydia Hislop: well prepared to ridicule live some of leaner prices first offered
RTV's Lydia Hislop: well prepared to ridicule live some of leaner prices first offered
Edward Whitaker
Defensive quotes lead to defensive books and when you take into account that these days the each-way terms for competitive races tend to be much better on the day there is very little incentive to part with your cash at an early stage while also risking losing your money on a non-runner.
Let's take the current market for Qipco 2,000 Guineas, a race which admittedly we don't even know when or if it will take place right now.
At the time of writing, bet365, using them as an example for no particular reason, had 12 horses in their betting at shorter than 25-1 and their percentage book on those 12 was 127. And they are offering each-way terms of a fifth the odds the first three, with the usual ante-post terms of all in, run or not.
Yet on 2,0000 Guineas day in 2019, the same firm's top 12 horses came with a book of 110 per cent and each-way terms of a fifth the first FOUR – and you got your money back if your horse didn't run.
None of this seems like an advert for ante-post betting, but there is also a reason the bookmakers seem to be doing their level best to dissuade people from this type of betting.
On the face of it the odds are heavily stacked in their favour with tight margins and free money from non-runners, but I've spoken to countless layers over the years about ante-post betting and they all say the same thing – it is not particularly profitable.
That's because this form of wagering attracts exactly the type of punter they don't really want to do business with – someone who thinks deeply about their betting.
A bookmaker's perfect racing customer is the race-by-race punter, which is what most racing bettors are.
The reason the BHA recently started using strange race times (like 2.03, 3.12) was not just purely to increase our viewing pleasure by limiting the number of race clashes and split screens.
It was also to enable bookmakers to settle markets more quickly and in time for punters to reinvest their returns on the next race, as so many do.
Ante-post punters are not like that. With credit betting largely a thing of the past, the decision to tie up some of your own cash for what can be many months is a serious one. And it is made by serious punters who have the cash to spare largely because they're good at it.
Whenever I speak to a bookmaker about ante-post betting they always say the same thing: "We only see live money."
Years ago 'live money' may only have been a reference to stable gambles, but these days it's more likely to simply mean money from people who know what they are doing.
Big-race entries on racingpost.com show the leading contenders for the year's top events
Big-race entries on racingpost.com show the leading contenders for the year's top events
I must admit that for a huge part of my punting life I was your archetypal betting shop mug. I was only ever interested in the next race and the very thought of having a bet on something that wouldn't be taking place on the same day seemed ridiculous.
Indeed, in my early days at the Racing Post I missed the chance to win what would have been a life-changing amount of money at the time simply because of that attitude.
Watching the racing at my former colleague Mike Brewer's house on day one of the Grand National meeting in 1989, I was asked if I fancied going in with him on an ante-post double on the National and Derby.
"Don't be ridiculous," was the gist of my response. "What a mug's game that is, I don't know what's going to win in the next ten minutes."
Moments later Mike was on the phone to his bookie, placing a £10 each-way double on Little Polveir at 50-1 for the National and Nashwan at 16-1 for the Derby, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The winnings would have been more than a year's wages at the time and more than enough to put a deposit down on a three-bed house.
The odds comparison tool on racingpost.com, showing prices for the 2020 Investec Derby
The odds comparison tool on racingpost.com, showing prices for the 2020 Investec Derby
I would like to say that after that the merits of ante-post betting would have been embedded in my mind, but for years I would only have the sporadic bet and Sayyedati's 1993 1,000 Guineas win (a whole £20 at 28-1, placed the day after she won the Cheveley Park in September of the previous year) remains my only really long-term winning Flat bet.
It wasn't until I started tipping for the Racing Post Weekender little more than ten years ago that it dawned on me that ante-post betting can actually be very rewarding.
I can only talk from my own experiences and I don't really do anything different in terms of form study that I didn't discuss when this series opened last week, but what works for me are Saturday races at the five-day entry stages and Cheltenham Festival handicaps, so we'll discuss these a bit now.
Saturday racing
Once I started tasting some success for the Weekender I really did become aware of how much value you can get at the five-day stage, even if bookmakers appear stingy with their margins and each-way terms.
Indeed, my results from 2019 really hammered it home. Last year was arguably my best as a tipster, but in the Racing Post, tipping at SP, the overall profit on investment was four per cent.
That doesn't sound high, but when you're tipping in competitive races you have around a 20 per cent margin against you in every race and turning any sort of profit is an achievement, especially if your selections end up well backed from bigger overnight odds.
However, when it came to the Weekender, the profit on investment was 60 per cent – and that included all the losses from the non-runners as well as the losers.
I can't promise it will always be that good, but most years have been nicely profitable, which goes to show ante-post betting cannot be such a bad thing.
Aside from normal form study, there are other things you obviously need to consider.
1. How likely a runner is your selection?
The first thing you should do when studying the race is to see whether the horse in question has more than one entry that weekend or, indeed, another entry in the coming days. It's a case of making a judgement call then, but when a horse has multiple entries I tend to need a good reason to get involved.
When I first started at the Weekender I was forever asking the news desk to see if one of our reporters could give the trainer of this or that a call, but as often as not you'd be put away anyway. Not deliberately of course, but horses have more than one entry for a reason and plans are always fluid, so these days I just rely on my own judgement. It doesn't always work, but I've nobody to blame but myself then and I find that much easier to cope with mentally.
2. How likely is it the field will cut up?
Trying to predict the number of runners in a race is not easy, but a lot of the biggest handicaps tend to be oversubscribed, which means you can all but guarantee a maximum field.
That should govern the way you bet on these races as there is often little point in backing a favourite ante-post for a race that is going to attract a full field. You might even get a better price on the day and you'll certainly get better each-way terms.
However, when I started at the Weekender the layers would price up only one or two weekend races, whereas now most do all of the ones scheduled to be on ITV. A lot of these will cut up and with a bit of diligence you can work out which ones will. I always look at every single runner and work out how many in each race have other options. Then it's a case of trying to work out the best fit.
3. What is the going likely to be?
I spend far too much of my life on weather websites like accuweather.com, metoffice.gov.uk and yr.no and it can be a frustrating exercise. It's amazing how many times the forecast will be completely different by the time the Weekender comes out on a Wednesday than when I write the column on a Monday night.
However, you can only work with what you're given and trying to get an idea of what conditions are going to be like is a must.
The Cheltenham Festival
Like all jumps fans I look forward to the Cheltenham Festival every year, but I always think the format of Cheltenham preview nights is wrong. I've been on my fair share and we spend 90 per cent of the time talking about races that have been done to death and have fully mature markets.
At least 90 per cent of the people who attend these events already know what they are backing – or have already backed – in all the Grade 1 races and what they're more interested in is some ideas for handicaps.
Of course, not many pundits want to be spending hours sifting through the form of the 12 handicaps at the meeting when they all have 100 or more entries, but most of my best wins have come in the handicaps, so here's what I look for.
The chases
I have a particular fondness for the handicap chases, especially the Ultima and Northern Trust Company Novices' Handicap.
I have been fortunate enough to back the winner of the latter seven times in the race's 16-year history, including four of the last seven and three of the last four.
The early markets for these do not tend to be taken so seriously by the layers, which is what makes them so interesting. They tend to be lazily priced, especially before entries are made, with many horses from the top yards dominating the markets.
However, when horses from the top yards run, particularly in the novice race, they are there largely by mistake and that's why only two of the 16 runnings of the novice has been won by the big four trainers (Paul Nicholls, Nicky Henderson, Gordon Elliott, Willie Mullins) – Nicholls' Chapoturgeon in 2009 and Henderson's Rajdhani Express.
The pool of horses sent novice chasing by the big four is always much smaller than the pool of horses they have for hurdling and they are looking for Grade 1 horses. Therefore, they tend to be campaigned more openly and those who end up here are the ones who generally have proved not to be good enough. Despite who trains them, they are not obviously well handicapped.
Therefore, these races tend to offer the smaller yards a real shot at festival glory, as the rollcall of winners of the novice would suggest: Bradstock, Fanshawe, Murphy, Taaffe, Nicholls, Hobbs, Murphy, Burke, Henderson, Snowden, Curtis, Williams, Fleming, Channon, De Bromhead, Bailey.
The beauty of being able to look at horses from the smaller yards is that the bookmakers tend to pay little attention.
Coo Star Sivola (near): won the Ultima Handicap Chase in 2018
Coo Star Sivola (near): won the Ultima Handicap Chase in 2018
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
When Coo Star Sivola won the Ultima in 2018 for instance, he went off at 5-1. But after winning in a hack canter by 14 lengths on his first try at 3m at Exeter the month before he was available at 25-1 for a least a couple of hours after the race – I kept sneaking back and having small bets every few minutes. Had he been trained by Henderson or Nicholls instead of Nick Williams, he'd have been in single figures straight away.
Similarly, Kildisart was available at 33-1 for the Ultima for a good few hours after what was a really eyectaching run at Kempton last month. Okay, he didn't win, but he was only just beaten and he was never going to go off at anywhere near those odds.
If a horse with Grade 1 entries runs a big race you bet the layers will be all over it, but they simply don't pay as much attention to the handicappers.
The hurdles
The big trainers don't make it easy by having so many entries for the handicaps, but Mullins, Elliott, Nicholls and Henderson have won eight of the last 11 Coral Cups and Martin Pipes, while Mullins and Nicholls have nine County Hurdles between them since 2004, so your first port of call has to be the big yards.
They all have a big pool of hurdlers to go to war with and will have established a pecking order long before the festival, which makes them more likely to plan a handicap campaign for those just below the top level.
The chases have always proved better for me, though, as that's where I think you can get a real edge.
Classic conundrum: why Pinatubo has to be taken on in the Guineas
The market for the Qipco 2,000 Guineas is one that fascinates me as we don't know when or if the race will be run – and the timing might well prove crucial.
Of course, if racing does resume in May it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we'll start with the Guineas on May 2 and 3 because many of the runners would have been going there first time anyway.
You would still assume it's unlikely, though, and when the race takes place could have a major outcome on the result.
Pinatubo's profile page on racingpost.com, showing his big-race entries
Pinatubo's profile page on racingpost.com, showing his big-race entries
Pinatubo is obviously a very warm favourite, but we're yet to find out whether he is simply brilliant or was just brilliantly precocious.
He started his racing career in May, which is pretty early for a Classic horse. This century just six 2,000 Guineas winners started their careers in May or earlier, with one more in the first week in June.
Of those, four never won a race after Royal Ascot and one more had finished his winning after the Sussex Stakes in July.
The later the Guineas takes place, the more likely it will be that the slower-maturing types catch up with Pinatubo.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
1 of 1
UPDATED 8:45PM, MAR 27 2020
Given there is no British or Irish racing for the foreseeable future, this seems as good a time as any to discuss ante-post betting.
It's a form of betting that seems to be losing its popularity, with many pundits in recent years declaring "ante-post betting is dead", and there are reasons for that.
The most obvious one is that bookmakers over the last few years have become ever tighter with their margins and quotes for horses for big races.
There was a time many years ago when the winner of a trial for a big race was given a reasonable and considered quote for the big target, but nowadays the job for bookmakers' representatives – and many don't even have them at the racecourse for all but the big days now – is getting their company's name mentioned.
There are two ways of doing that – offer the best price in the marketplace, or offer the worst.
Offering the best has the obvious drawback of tempting people to bet, building up a liability you don't necessarily want and getting criticised for not holding the price for more than five minutes.
Going short is much less of a risk, although we can be thankful for having some quality commentators on our racing channels who at least try to keep the layers honest – the likes of RTV's Lydia Hislop, Steve Mellish and Jonathan Neesom readily spring to mind as those well prepared to ridicule live the more paltry offerings that are sent their way.
RTV's Lydia Hislop: well prepared to ridicule live some of leaner prices first offered
RTV's Lydia Hislop: well prepared to ridicule live some of leaner prices first offered
Edward Whitaker
Defensive quotes lead to defensive books and when you take into account that these days the each-way terms for competitive races tend to be much better on the day there is very little incentive to part with your cash at an early stage while also risking losing your money on a non-runner.
Let's take the current market for Qipco 2,000 Guineas, a race which admittedly we don't even know when or if it will take place right now.
At the time of writing, bet365, using them as an example for no particular reason, had 12 horses in their betting at shorter than 25-1 and their percentage book on those 12 was 127. And they are offering each-way terms of a fifth the odds the first three, with the usual ante-post terms of all in, run or not.
Yet on 2,0000 Guineas day in 2019, the same firm's top 12 horses came with a book of 110 per cent and each-way terms of a fifth the first FOUR – and you got your money back if your horse didn't run.
None of this seems like an advert for ante-post betting, but there is also a reason the bookmakers seem to be doing their level best to dissuade people from this type of betting.
On the face of it the odds are heavily stacked in their favour with tight margins and free money from non-runners, but I've spoken to countless layers over the years about ante-post betting and they all say the same thing – it is not particularly profitable.
That's because this form of wagering attracts exactly the type of punter they don't really want to do business with – someone who thinks deeply about their betting.
A bookmaker's perfect racing customer is the race-by-race punter, which is what most racing bettors are.
The reason the BHA recently started using strange race times (like 2.03, 3.12) was not just purely to increase our viewing pleasure by limiting the number of race clashes and split screens.
It was also to enable bookmakers to settle markets more quickly and in time for punters to reinvest their returns on the next race, as so many do.
Ante-post punters are not like that. With credit betting largely a thing of the past, the decision to tie up some of your own cash for what can be many months is a serious one. And it is made by serious punters who have the cash to spare largely because they're good at it.
Whenever I speak to a bookmaker about ante-post betting they always say the same thing: "We only see live money."
Years ago 'live money' may only have been a reference to stable gambles, but these days it's more likely to simply mean money from people who know what they are doing.
Big-race entries on racingpost.com show the leading contenders for the year's top events
Big-race entries on racingpost.com show the leading contenders for the year's top events
I must admit that for a huge part of my punting life I was your archetypal betting shop mug. I was only ever interested in the next race and the very thought of having a bet on something that wouldn't be taking place on the same day seemed ridiculous.
Indeed, in my early days at the Racing Post I missed the chance to win what would have been a life-changing amount of money at the time simply because of that attitude.
Watching the racing at my former colleague Mike Brewer's house on day one of the Grand National meeting in 1989, I was asked if I fancied going in with him on an ante-post double on the National and Derby.
"Don't be ridiculous," was the gist of my response. "What a mug's game that is, I don't know what's going to win in the next ten minutes."
Moments later Mike was on the phone to his bookie, placing a £10 each-way double on Little Polveir at 50-1 for the National and Nashwan at 16-1 for the Derby, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The winnings would have been more than a year's wages at the time and more than enough to put a deposit down on a three-bed house.
The odds comparison tool on racingpost.com, showing prices for the 2020 Investec Derby
The odds comparison tool on racingpost.com, showing prices for the 2020 Investec Derby
I would like to say that after that the merits of ante-post betting would have been embedded in my mind, but for years I would only have the sporadic bet and Sayyedati's 1993 1,000 Guineas win (a whole £20 at 28-1, placed the day after she won the Cheveley Park in September of the previous year) remains my only really long-term winning Flat bet.
It wasn't until I started tipping for the Racing Post Weekender little more than ten years ago that it dawned on me that ante-post betting can actually be very rewarding.
I can only talk from my own experiences and I don't really do anything different in terms of form study that I didn't discuss when this series opened last week, but what works for me are Saturday races at the five-day entry stages and Cheltenham Festival handicaps, so we'll discuss these a bit now.
Saturday racing
Once I started tasting some success for the Weekender I really did become aware of how much value you can get at the five-day stage, even if bookmakers appear stingy with their margins and each-way terms.
Indeed, my results from 2019 really hammered it home. Last year was arguably my best as a tipster, but in the Racing Post, tipping at SP, the overall profit on investment was four per cent.
That doesn't sound high, but when you're tipping in competitive races you have around a 20 per cent margin against you in every race and turning any sort of profit is an achievement, especially if your selections end up well backed from bigger overnight odds.
However, when it came to the Weekender, the profit on investment was 60 per cent – and that included all the losses from the non-runners as well as the losers.
I can't promise it will always be that good, but most years have been nicely profitable, which goes to show ante-post betting cannot be such a bad thing.
Aside from normal form study, there are other things you obviously need to consider.
1. How likely a runner is your selection?
The first thing you should do when studying the race is to see whether the horse in question has more than one entry that weekend or, indeed, another entry in the coming days. It's a case of making a judgement call then, but when a horse has multiple entries I tend to need a good reason to get involved.
When I first started at the Weekender I was forever asking the news desk to see if one of our reporters could give the trainer of this or that a call, but as often as not you'd be put away anyway. Not deliberately of course, but horses have more than one entry for a reason and plans are always fluid, so these days I just rely on my own judgement. It doesn't always work, but I've nobody to blame but myself then and I find that much easier to cope with mentally.
2. How likely is it the field will cut up?
Trying to predict the number of runners in a race is not easy, but a lot of the biggest handicaps tend to be oversubscribed, which means you can all but guarantee a maximum field.
That should govern the way you bet on these races as there is often little point in backing a favourite ante-post for a race that is going to attract a full field. You might even get a better price on the day and you'll certainly get better each-way terms.
However, when I started at the Weekender the layers would price up only one or two weekend races, whereas now most do all of the ones scheduled to be on ITV. A lot of these will cut up and with a bit of diligence you can work out which ones will. I always look at every single runner and work out how many in each race have other options. Then it's a case of trying to work out the best fit.
3. What is the going likely to be?
I spend far too much of my life on weather websites like accuweather.com, metoffice.gov.uk and yr.no and it can be a frustrating exercise. It's amazing how many times the forecast will be completely different by the time the Weekender comes out on a Wednesday than when I write the column on a Monday night.
However, you can only work with what you're given and trying to get an idea of what conditions are going to be like is a must.
The Cheltenham Festival
Like all jumps fans I look forward to the Cheltenham Festival every year, but I always think the format of Cheltenham preview nights is wrong. I've been on my fair share and we spend 90 per cent of the time talking about races that have been done to death and have fully mature markets.
At least 90 per cent of the people who attend these events already know what they are backing – or have already backed – in all the Grade 1 races and what they're more interested in is some ideas for handicaps.
Of course, not many pundits want to be spending hours sifting through the form of the 12 handicaps at the meeting when they all have 100 or more entries, but most of my best wins have come in the handicaps, so here's what I look for.
The chases
I have a particular fondness for the handicap chases, especially the Ultima and Northern Trust Company Novices' Handicap.
I have been fortunate enough to back the winner of the latter seven times in the race's 16-year history, including four of the last seven and three of the last four.
The early markets for these do not tend to be taken so seriously by the layers, which is what makes them so interesting. They tend to be lazily priced, especially before entries are made, with many horses from the top yards dominating the markets.
However, when horses from the top yards run, particularly in the novice race, they are there largely by mistake and that's why only two of the 16 runnings of the novice has been won by the big four trainers (Paul Nicholls, Nicky Henderson, Gordon Elliott, Willie Mullins) – Nicholls' Chapoturgeon in 2009 and Henderson's Rajdhani Express.
The pool of horses sent novice chasing by the big four is always much smaller than the pool of horses they have for hurdling and they are looking for Grade 1 horses. Therefore, they tend to be campaigned more openly and those who end up here are the ones who generally have proved not to be good enough. Despite who trains them, they are not obviously well handicapped.
Therefore, these races tend to offer the smaller yards a real shot at festival glory, as the rollcall of winners of the novice would suggest: Bradstock, Fanshawe, Murphy, Taaffe, Nicholls, Hobbs, Murphy, Burke, Henderson, Snowden, Curtis, Williams, Fleming, Channon, De Bromhead, Bailey.
The beauty of being able to look at horses from the smaller yards is that the bookmakers tend to pay little attention.
Coo Star Sivola (near): won the Ultima Handicap Chase in 2018
Coo Star Sivola (near): won the Ultima Handicap Chase in 2018
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
When Coo Star Sivola won the Ultima in 2018 for instance, he went off at 5-1. But after winning in a hack canter by 14 lengths on his first try at 3m at Exeter the month before he was available at 25-1 for a least a couple of hours after the race – I kept sneaking back and having small bets every few minutes. Had he been trained by Henderson or Nicholls instead of Nick Williams, he'd have been in single figures straight away.
Similarly, Kildisart was available at 33-1 for the Ultima for a good few hours after what was a really eyectaching run at Kempton last month. Okay, he didn't win, but he was only just beaten and he was never going to go off at anywhere near those odds.
If a horse with Grade 1 entries runs a big race you bet the layers will be all over it, but they simply don't pay as much attention to the handicappers.
The hurdles
The big trainers don't make it easy by having so many entries for the handicaps, but Mullins, Elliott, Nicholls and Henderson have won eight of the last 11 Coral Cups and Martin Pipes, while Mullins and Nicholls have nine County Hurdles between them since 2004, so your first port of call has to be the big yards.
They all have a big pool of hurdlers to go to war with and will have established a pecking order long before the festival, which makes them more likely to plan a handicap campaign for those just below the top level.
The chases have always proved better for me, though, as that's where I think you can get a real edge.
Classic conundrum: why Pinatubo has to be taken on in the Guineas
The market for the Qipco 2,000 Guineas is one that fascinates me as we don't know when or if the race will be run – and the timing might well prove crucial.
Of course, if racing does resume in May it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we'll start with the Guineas on May 2 and 3 because many of the runners would have been going there first time anyway.
You would still assume it's unlikely, though, and when the race takes place could have a major outcome on the result.
Pinatubo's profile page on racingpost.com, showing his big-race entries
Pinatubo's profile page on racingpost.com, showing his big-race entries
Pinatubo is obviously a very warm favourite, but we're yet to find out whether he is simply brilliant or was just brilliantly precocious.
He started his racing career in May, which is pretty early for a Classic horse. This century just six 2,000 Guineas winners started their careers in May or earlier, with one more in the first week in June.
Of those, four never won a race after Royal Ascot and one more had finished his winning after the Sussex Stakes in July.
The later the Guineas takes place, the more likely it will be that the slower-maturing types catch up with Pinatubo.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
Ratings to improve your betting
Handicapping: understanding ratings could improve your betting
Handicapping: understanding ratings could improve your betting
1 of 1
By Paul Curtis
UPDATED 1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
The most important factor that affects a horse's chance of winning is its raw ability. Not the most controversial sentence you'll ever read but an inescapable racing truth.
It follows, then, that to try to make racing pay we need to quantify each horse's ability.
Most of us will be able to recall school sports day, where a wide range of abilities were on show. No matter how snazzy the trainers, or how isotonic the fluid intake, it was obvious who was going home with the medals. Solving the racing puzzle is a little more complex.
There are a number of approaches we could take, but assessing the merit of a horse's performances is key. The most common method used to determine raw ability is handicap ratings.
Put simply, handicap ratings are a numeric representation of a horse's ability in a certain set of circumstances. If weighing up the form is about finding the horse with the most ability, then expressing that with a number is the obvious way to go.
Ratings allow comparison not only with those horses who have already been raced against, but also, through collateral form and/or other handicapping methods, those who haven't.
Most ratings services, Racing Post Ratings (RPRs) included, operate on the same scale as the BHA: 0-140 on the Flat and 0-175 over jumps, where each point on the scale represents the difference in horses' ability expressed in pounds (lb).
Of the 20,000 or so races and horses assessed each year by the RPR team, all but the elite performers will fit in this scale. In its simplest terms, putting ratings on a run-of-the-mill handicap where we know plenty about the runners can be straightforward. We find the horse we consider most likely to have run its race and work from there, using a well-established 'lb per beaten length' scale.
Under normal conditions this will vary from around 3.6lb over five furlongs to a little over 1lb for a two-mile race on the Flat, with the lb per length x furlongs equalling 18.
Jumps races will generally be rated at a little under 1lb per length, while extreme conditions and falsely run races will affect these allowances slightly.
However, there's more to rating a race than a cold assessment of the figures. Factors such as the overall race time, sectional times, going, weather conditions and any other apparent biases all go into the mix.
In many ways the thought processes involved in rating a result can be similar to those employed as a punter, with variables such as recent form, track, trip, draw and ground all pertinent to highlighting which horses might be expected to run to form.
It's also the preserve of a private handicapper to take a view on a race. The majority of races that we handicap will have already been assessed at the overnight stage for RPR tipping purposes. As well as giving a steer as to the strength of a race, tipping analysis can unearth other points of interest, such as those horses you might anticipate improvement from, how much pace there might be, or horses of interest from a wind operation or trainer form angle.
This means many of these factors will have been considered before we come to rate a result, and with pre-race figures available on our handicapping software we can readily assess how runners have performed against expectation.
Time analysis is an important part of the rating process, with winning times compared against Racing Post standard times to highlight the truest run races. A fast time will encourage a more positive assessment of a race, and likely a more confident one too.
A slow time may demand a more cautious approach, but good horses will run slow times as well as fast if compromised by the run of the race. The majority of Flat races run in Britain are not truly run and a slow time won't necessarily result in a low rating if existing form and race standards demand otherwise.
Sectional times help unmask 'hidden' ability in falsely run races, often corresponding to a reading of the race with a focus on track position. Making use of this data and being aware of the running order two furlongs or three furlongs out, then comparing this to the finishing positions, can unearth horses whose bare figures are worthy of an upgrade.
Over jumps, a finishing split from two obstacles out can underline if a race has been truly run and reveal ability that the overall time alone might mask.
As handicappers, we spend a significant amount of time assessing races visually and then applying the information gleaned when evaluating the form. The importance of time spent watching races, preferably over a whole card to get a better feel for things and perhaps highlight pace, track or draw biases, shouldn't be underestimated.
It is important to watch race replays when evaluating a race
It is important to watch race replays when evaluating a race
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
When telling someone what I do I'm often asked if I go to the races, and they're usually surprised when I reply "not for work". The reason is simple. Were I to have the time to go racing in the first place and watch races live, I would still have to watch recordings later to see what I'd missed. It would be akin to a Match of the Day pundit having to pass judgement on a tight offside or debatable penalty without watching the replays.
While it's possible to handicap via a computer program, there's no substitute for the evidence of the eye. There's plenty of scope within a private handicap to account for hampered horses, those running notably well from a poor draw or against a pace bias and – particularly over jumps – for eased-down runners.
Having that in-depth feel for your races is important. It would be difficult for someone handicapping in their spare time to do so thoroughly unless specialising. Knowing your horses and anticipating what might happen in a race can provide great insight when it comes to handicapping.
In the majority of races there will be plenty of form – or ratings – to go on, and assigning figures to horses you're already familiar with might be fairly straightforward. A good deal will have far less evidence to go on, including races restricted to debutants, but putting a figure on such races isn't as daunting as it might seem and we can be hopeful of assessing their worth with a good degree of accuracy.
Invariably we will have a fair idea of the level of ability required to win a given race, and adjusted average winning RPRs are printed on our racecards for non-handicaps, giving ready reference to whether the form horses are up to the likely required standard.
But while an average winning RPR can be a good guide, it's important to look beyond the obvious. Last year's Wood Ditton Stakes provides a useful example. The previous five renewals had produced winning RPRs between 88 and 92, but there was plenty to suggest that UAE Jewel was better than that.
Delving further back, the race produced expected RPRs for the first six of 88, 85, 82, 78, 75 and 70. With the third finishing six lengths clear of the field, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the second and third had at least run to par. The idea with such race pars is to try to get a best fit within the historical model (taking account of conditions and times) and RPRs of 99, 87 and 86 for the first three, with 72, 72 and 66 for the fourth, fifth and sixth, reflects this. The first three – and notably the exceptional winner – all rate above average for their finishing positions, while the next three home rate between 3lb and 6lb below par.
Of course, as an odds-on five-length debut winner, it was pretty clear that UAE Jewel was smart. However, a detailed look into the race averages helped in assigning a notable and accurate figure to an unknown quantity.
A similar approach can be applied to most races where little is known about the horses, and even those where we know a fair bit. The Classics fall into this category, with the 2,000 Guineas a good example.
There is an old handicapping adage that you should rate horses on races, not races on horses. The average pre-race RPR of the highest-rated runner going into the 2,000 Guineas in recent years is 122. However, the race data and an average winning RPR of 124 persuades that the race should not be rated solely on form and should take account of the race averages firmly established through the subsequent exploits of Guineas contenders past. In this way, the race informs the level of the ratings as well as the form of the horses.
Likewise early three-year-old handicaps, brimming with unexposed types, demand a more sophisticated approach than a face-value reading of the form. A leading example is the London Gold Cup, run at Newbury on Lockinge day, in which not only the winner but typically the first half dozen or so home can be considered ahead of their marks. Again, the race standards demand that this is a race to be viewed positively, though unfortunately the BHA handicappers have now cottoned on to such races.
When comparing RPRs against BHA figures, the main difference is that while the official ratings are an illustration of a horse's perceived current level of ability, RPRs do not operate a master rating system. Instead, our performance ratings are assigned to each race – and updated as future results dictate – and available for reference.
Using ratings to improve your betting
For a start, be selective. Over 10,000 races are contested in Britain every year. Few punters will make a profit if playing in a quarter or more of them. Consider a city trader faced with 50 prospective companies to trade on. The trader in question may or may not recommend a trade on one or more. He certainly wouldn't try to trade them all.
In contrast, some punters will try to play the majority of the races on a busy Saturday. Bookmakers have to bet on every race, but punters don’t need to engage in every race. Choosing your battles carefully improves the prospect of your better results not being undermined by your worst.
Along with other essential race result data, RPRs are accessible on racingpost.com, where it's possible to compile your own handicap ratings too. Our adjusted ratings on the card offer an at-a-glance start point for each race. Sortable columns make it easy to build a profile for the more exposed horses using RPRs, highlighting preferences that might not be immediately apparent from form figures or their race record.
As a recent example, Wolverhampton winner Glan Y Gors had only ever won at Newcastle prior to his success on March 6. But a delve into his record would have shown that his peak RPR had actually come at Dunstall Park, which could have put any track doubts to bed.
Official ratings are necessarily reflective of recent form but, while a horse's current form is important, there may be valid reasons a horse has been below par of late. Performance ratings might indicate a preference for ground, track or time of year, or equally a dislike of certain conditions that would make some below-standard performances excusable.
By highlighting the conditions under which a horse's better figures have been achieved, it's possible to anticipate a return to form and unearth a favourably weighted contender.
An often under-played angle when assessing races is class. Class plays a big part in the outcome of races, something which can't be stressed enough. Put simply, bet more cautiously when your fancy is up in grade and with more confidence when your fancy is being dropped into a lower-class race.
The excellent Raceform Interactive software helps give an illustration of the point.
In 2019, 28 horses ran under a penalty in Class 6 handicaps after winning a Class 5 handicap on their previous outing. Eleven of these won, securing a return on investment (ROI) for bettors of just over 26 per cent. For balance, the previous year there were 29 qualifiers who returned a marginal (two per cent) loss. Clearly, anyone with a view on the merits of this relatively tiny group of horses would hope to be able to improve these numbers by applying their own knowledge and expertise.
Paul Curtis Q&A
What was your first bet?
The first I remember from my early days playing around with figures was backing Blitzkrieg getting 24lb from Desert Orchid over 2m in the 1991 Victor Chandler Chase.
What was your biggest win?
No ripsnorters, but an each-way multiple that culminated in Lafi running out a well-backed winner of the 2004 Wokingham returned a modest four-figure sum. There have been a few close shaves in Jackpots and the Scoop6, but no cigars.
What was your most painful loser?
A Jackpot at Royal Ascot in 2012 which went down in the last leg, the Buckingham Palace Stakes. I'd taken a view that you wanted to be high, but Eton Forever stormed home from stall three. I definitely had runner-up Jamesie (drawn 24) and one or possibly both of the pair that finished third and fourth from stalls 25 and 21.
Eton Forever: winner of the Spring Mile in 2011, and Buckingham Palace Stakes the following year
Eton Forever: winner of the Spring Mile in 2011, and Buckingham Palace Stakes the following year
Martin Lynch (racingpost.com/photos)
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
Not to take ratings too literally when horses are going up in grade, particularly with more exposed performers. There's more going on than the bare figures might suggest, and the horse who appears well treated on lower-grade form can prove anything but when taken out of their comfort zone by higher-class opposition.
Steve Mason on handicapping jumpers
While the methodology is the same, handicapping jumpers is probably more problematic and the margin for error can be much greater.
Watching the races is key and, for obvious reasons, it usually takes longer to watch a race over jumps. Eased-down winners are common, horses make mistakes, fall, and are hampered by fallers.
The Racing Post Rating allocated to horses in the race result attempts to take these and other factors into account and watching races and rewatching incidents within races can be very time-consuming. I probably spent more time on the incident-packed Martin Pipe than on any other race at the festival.
While the races at Cheltenham are relatively easy to rate, the day-to-day fare is often harder to evaluate.
Factors including testing ground, small fields and fallers can all play their part in producing results that can be difficult to rate accurately. Wide-margin winners are common.
While I would be fairly confident that the ratings allocated to races at the recent Cheltenham Festival will probably not need to be revised by more than a couple of pounds either way, other races could require far more alteration.
The recent shutdown has given me the opportunity to go back through the whole of the season, but more typically I will spend a lot of time at the overnight stage and again when the result is in, looking back at past races and raising or lowering races in light of subsequent results. Races that have worked out well may need to go up, others may need to be dropped.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is key to good handicapping but, while every effort is made to rate the races as accurately as possible in the immediate aftermath, the more information the better.
All handicappers should work this way, even if connections regularly bemoan the fact that their horse has gone up x number of pounds in the handicap while standing in its box.
While official ratings are altered only once a week and, with the exception of any penalties incurred for very recent successes, remain fixed for racing from Saturday to the following Friday, the RPRs on the card are as accurate and up-to-date as possible. This hopefully gives them an edge over official marks.
Uttoxeter: summer racing can throw up some excellent opportunities
Uttoxeter: summer racing can throw up some excellent opportunities
GROSSICK RACING 07710461723
Improving horses are an occupational hazard for all handicappers and this is particularly the case with relatively lightly raced novices over jumps. Of the 14 Cheltenham Festival winners who improved their RPRs by upwards of 5lb, 11 of them were novices. Of the more "exposed" winners only the first-time-blinkered Sire Du Berlais, the still lightly raced Epatante and surprise Stayers' Hurdle winner Lisnagar Oscar posted similarly improved figures. The likes of Saint Roi and Chosen Mate may be easy to fancy, but they can't be top-rated regardless of how much effort has gone into the compilation of the ratings.
While the core jumps season from November through to the end of the season in late April attracts the bulk of the column inches in this newspaper, there is plenty of jumps action from May through to October. With generally better and more consistent ground, less unexposed runners from the bigger stables and, at certain times in particular, a smaller pool of horses and courses, I would expect the strike-rate of horses top-rated on RPRs to improve.
It's easy to overlook racing at the likes of Worcester, Stratford and Uttoxeter during a big summer Flat meeting but these summer jumps meetings can throw up some excellent opportunities
Handicapping: understanding ratings could improve your betting
Handicapping: understanding ratings could improve your betting
1 of 1
By Paul Curtis
UPDATED 1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
The most important factor that affects a horse's chance of winning is its raw ability. Not the most controversial sentence you'll ever read but an inescapable racing truth.
It follows, then, that to try to make racing pay we need to quantify each horse's ability.
Most of us will be able to recall school sports day, where a wide range of abilities were on show. No matter how snazzy the trainers, or how isotonic the fluid intake, it was obvious who was going home with the medals. Solving the racing puzzle is a little more complex.
There are a number of approaches we could take, but assessing the merit of a horse's performances is key. The most common method used to determine raw ability is handicap ratings.
Put simply, handicap ratings are a numeric representation of a horse's ability in a certain set of circumstances. If weighing up the form is about finding the horse with the most ability, then expressing that with a number is the obvious way to go.
Ratings allow comparison not only with those horses who have already been raced against, but also, through collateral form and/or other handicapping methods, those who haven't.
Most ratings services, Racing Post Ratings (RPRs) included, operate on the same scale as the BHA: 0-140 on the Flat and 0-175 over jumps, where each point on the scale represents the difference in horses' ability expressed in pounds (lb).
Of the 20,000 or so races and horses assessed each year by the RPR team, all but the elite performers will fit in this scale. In its simplest terms, putting ratings on a run-of-the-mill handicap where we know plenty about the runners can be straightforward. We find the horse we consider most likely to have run its race and work from there, using a well-established 'lb per beaten length' scale.
Under normal conditions this will vary from around 3.6lb over five furlongs to a little over 1lb for a two-mile race on the Flat, with the lb per length x furlongs equalling 18.
Jumps races will generally be rated at a little under 1lb per length, while extreme conditions and falsely run races will affect these allowances slightly.
However, there's more to rating a race than a cold assessment of the figures. Factors such as the overall race time, sectional times, going, weather conditions and any other apparent biases all go into the mix.
In many ways the thought processes involved in rating a result can be similar to those employed as a punter, with variables such as recent form, track, trip, draw and ground all pertinent to highlighting which horses might be expected to run to form.
It's also the preserve of a private handicapper to take a view on a race. The majority of races that we handicap will have already been assessed at the overnight stage for RPR tipping purposes. As well as giving a steer as to the strength of a race, tipping analysis can unearth other points of interest, such as those horses you might anticipate improvement from, how much pace there might be, or horses of interest from a wind operation or trainer form angle.
This means many of these factors will have been considered before we come to rate a result, and with pre-race figures available on our handicapping software we can readily assess how runners have performed against expectation.
Time analysis is an important part of the rating process, with winning times compared against Racing Post standard times to highlight the truest run races. A fast time will encourage a more positive assessment of a race, and likely a more confident one too.
A slow time may demand a more cautious approach, but good horses will run slow times as well as fast if compromised by the run of the race. The majority of Flat races run in Britain are not truly run and a slow time won't necessarily result in a low rating if existing form and race standards demand otherwise.
Sectional times help unmask 'hidden' ability in falsely run races, often corresponding to a reading of the race with a focus on track position. Making use of this data and being aware of the running order two furlongs or three furlongs out, then comparing this to the finishing positions, can unearth horses whose bare figures are worthy of an upgrade.
Over jumps, a finishing split from two obstacles out can underline if a race has been truly run and reveal ability that the overall time alone might mask.
As handicappers, we spend a significant amount of time assessing races visually and then applying the information gleaned when evaluating the form. The importance of time spent watching races, preferably over a whole card to get a better feel for things and perhaps highlight pace, track or draw biases, shouldn't be underestimated.
It is important to watch race replays when evaluating a race
It is important to watch race replays when evaluating a race
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
When telling someone what I do I'm often asked if I go to the races, and they're usually surprised when I reply "not for work". The reason is simple. Were I to have the time to go racing in the first place and watch races live, I would still have to watch recordings later to see what I'd missed. It would be akin to a Match of the Day pundit having to pass judgement on a tight offside or debatable penalty without watching the replays.
While it's possible to handicap via a computer program, there's no substitute for the evidence of the eye. There's plenty of scope within a private handicap to account for hampered horses, those running notably well from a poor draw or against a pace bias and – particularly over jumps – for eased-down runners.
Having that in-depth feel for your races is important. It would be difficult for someone handicapping in their spare time to do so thoroughly unless specialising. Knowing your horses and anticipating what might happen in a race can provide great insight when it comes to handicapping.
In the majority of races there will be plenty of form – or ratings – to go on, and assigning figures to horses you're already familiar with might be fairly straightforward. A good deal will have far less evidence to go on, including races restricted to debutants, but putting a figure on such races isn't as daunting as it might seem and we can be hopeful of assessing their worth with a good degree of accuracy.
Invariably we will have a fair idea of the level of ability required to win a given race, and adjusted average winning RPRs are printed on our racecards for non-handicaps, giving ready reference to whether the form horses are up to the likely required standard.
But while an average winning RPR can be a good guide, it's important to look beyond the obvious. Last year's Wood Ditton Stakes provides a useful example. The previous five renewals had produced winning RPRs between 88 and 92, but there was plenty to suggest that UAE Jewel was better than that.
Delving further back, the race produced expected RPRs for the first six of 88, 85, 82, 78, 75 and 70. With the third finishing six lengths clear of the field, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the second and third had at least run to par. The idea with such race pars is to try to get a best fit within the historical model (taking account of conditions and times) and RPRs of 99, 87 and 86 for the first three, with 72, 72 and 66 for the fourth, fifth and sixth, reflects this. The first three – and notably the exceptional winner – all rate above average for their finishing positions, while the next three home rate between 3lb and 6lb below par.
Of course, as an odds-on five-length debut winner, it was pretty clear that UAE Jewel was smart. However, a detailed look into the race averages helped in assigning a notable and accurate figure to an unknown quantity.
A similar approach can be applied to most races where little is known about the horses, and even those where we know a fair bit. The Classics fall into this category, with the 2,000 Guineas a good example.
There is an old handicapping adage that you should rate horses on races, not races on horses. The average pre-race RPR of the highest-rated runner going into the 2,000 Guineas in recent years is 122. However, the race data and an average winning RPR of 124 persuades that the race should not be rated solely on form and should take account of the race averages firmly established through the subsequent exploits of Guineas contenders past. In this way, the race informs the level of the ratings as well as the form of the horses.
Likewise early three-year-old handicaps, brimming with unexposed types, demand a more sophisticated approach than a face-value reading of the form. A leading example is the London Gold Cup, run at Newbury on Lockinge day, in which not only the winner but typically the first half dozen or so home can be considered ahead of their marks. Again, the race standards demand that this is a race to be viewed positively, though unfortunately the BHA handicappers have now cottoned on to such races.
When comparing RPRs against BHA figures, the main difference is that while the official ratings are an illustration of a horse's perceived current level of ability, RPRs do not operate a master rating system. Instead, our performance ratings are assigned to each race – and updated as future results dictate – and available for reference.
Using ratings to improve your betting
For a start, be selective. Over 10,000 races are contested in Britain every year. Few punters will make a profit if playing in a quarter or more of them. Consider a city trader faced with 50 prospective companies to trade on. The trader in question may or may not recommend a trade on one or more. He certainly wouldn't try to trade them all.
In contrast, some punters will try to play the majority of the races on a busy Saturday. Bookmakers have to bet on every race, but punters don’t need to engage in every race. Choosing your battles carefully improves the prospect of your better results not being undermined by your worst.
Along with other essential race result data, RPRs are accessible on racingpost.com, where it's possible to compile your own handicap ratings too. Our adjusted ratings on the card offer an at-a-glance start point for each race. Sortable columns make it easy to build a profile for the more exposed horses using RPRs, highlighting preferences that might not be immediately apparent from form figures or their race record.
As a recent example, Wolverhampton winner Glan Y Gors had only ever won at Newcastle prior to his success on March 6. But a delve into his record would have shown that his peak RPR had actually come at Dunstall Park, which could have put any track doubts to bed.
Official ratings are necessarily reflective of recent form but, while a horse's current form is important, there may be valid reasons a horse has been below par of late. Performance ratings might indicate a preference for ground, track or time of year, or equally a dislike of certain conditions that would make some below-standard performances excusable.
By highlighting the conditions under which a horse's better figures have been achieved, it's possible to anticipate a return to form and unearth a favourably weighted contender.
An often under-played angle when assessing races is class. Class plays a big part in the outcome of races, something which can't be stressed enough. Put simply, bet more cautiously when your fancy is up in grade and with more confidence when your fancy is being dropped into a lower-class race.
The excellent Raceform Interactive software helps give an illustration of the point.
In 2019, 28 horses ran under a penalty in Class 6 handicaps after winning a Class 5 handicap on their previous outing. Eleven of these won, securing a return on investment (ROI) for bettors of just over 26 per cent. For balance, the previous year there were 29 qualifiers who returned a marginal (two per cent) loss. Clearly, anyone with a view on the merits of this relatively tiny group of horses would hope to be able to improve these numbers by applying their own knowledge and expertise.
Paul Curtis Q&A
What was your first bet?
The first I remember from my early days playing around with figures was backing Blitzkrieg getting 24lb from Desert Orchid over 2m in the 1991 Victor Chandler Chase.
What was your biggest win?
No ripsnorters, but an each-way multiple that culminated in Lafi running out a well-backed winner of the 2004 Wokingham returned a modest four-figure sum. There have been a few close shaves in Jackpots and the Scoop6, but no cigars.
What was your most painful loser?
A Jackpot at Royal Ascot in 2012 which went down in the last leg, the Buckingham Palace Stakes. I'd taken a view that you wanted to be high, but Eton Forever stormed home from stall three. I definitely had runner-up Jamesie (drawn 24) and one or possibly both of the pair that finished third and fourth from stalls 25 and 21.
Eton Forever: winner of the Spring Mile in 2011, and Buckingham Palace Stakes the following year
Eton Forever: winner of the Spring Mile in 2011, and Buckingham Palace Stakes the following year
Martin Lynch (racingpost.com/photos)
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
Not to take ratings too literally when horses are going up in grade, particularly with more exposed performers. There's more going on than the bare figures might suggest, and the horse who appears well treated on lower-grade form can prove anything but when taken out of their comfort zone by higher-class opposition.
Steve Mason on handicapping jumpers
While the methodology is the same, handicapping jumpers is probably more problematic and the margin for error can be much greater.
Watching the races is key and, for obvious reasons, it usually takes longer to watch a race over jumps. Eased-down winners are common, horses make mistakes, fall, and are hampered by fallers.
The Racing Post Rating allocated to horses in the race result attempts to take these and other factors into account and watching races and rewatching incidents within races can be very time-consuming. I probably spent more time on the incident-packed Martin Pipe than on any other race at the festival.
While the races at Cheltenham are relatively easy to rate, the day-to-day fare is often harder to evaluate.
Factors including testing ground, small fields and fallers can all play their part in producing results that can be difficult to rate accurately. Wide-margin winners are common.
While I would be fairly confident that the ratings allocated to races at the recent Cheltenham Festival will probably not need to be revised by more than a couple of pounds either way, other races could require far more alteration.
The recent shutdown has given me the opportunity to go back through the whole of the season, but more typically I will spend a lot of time at the overnight stage and again when the result is in, looking back at past races and raising or lowering races in light of subsequent results. Races that have worked out well may need to go up, others may need to be dropped.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is key to good handicapping but, while every effort is made to rate the races as accurately as possible in the immediate aftermath, the more information the better.
All handicappers should work this way, even if connections regularly bemoan the fact that their horse has gone up x number of pounds in the handicap while standing in its box.
While official ratings are altered only once a week and, with the exception of any penalties incurred for very recent successes, remain fixed for racing from Saturday to the following Friday, the RPRs on the card are as accurate and up-to-date as possible. This hopefully gives them an edge over official marks.
Uttoxeter: summer racing can throw up some excellent opportunities
Uttoxeter: summer racing can throw up some excellent opportunities
GROSSICK RACING 07710461723
Improving horses are an occupational hazard for all handicappers and this is particularly the case with relatively lightly raced novices over jumps. Of the 14 Cheltenham Festival winners who improved their RPRs by upwards of 5lb, 11 of them were novices. Of the more "exposed" winners only the first-time-blinkered Sire Du Berlais, the still lightly raced Epatante and surprise Stayers' Hurdle winner Lisnagar Oscar posted similarly improved figures. The likes of Saint Roi and Chosen Mate may be easy to fancy, but they can't be top-rated regardless of how much effort has gone into the compilation of the ratings.
While the core jumps season from November through to the end of the season in late April attracts the bulk of the column inches in this newspaper, there is plenty of jumps action from May through to October. With generally better and more consistent ground, less unexposed runners from the bigger stables and, at certain times in particular, a smaller pool of horses and courses, I would expect the strike-rate of horses top-rated on RPRs to improve.
It's easy to overlook racing at the likes of Worcester, Stratford and Uttoxeter during a big summer Flat meeting but these summer jumps meetings can throw up some excellent opportunities
Betting Masterclasses
Global Racecourse Guide
Videos & Postcasts
Best of Members' Club
Racing Explained
Betting Masterclasses BETTING ON COURSE
Eddie Fremantle: how to get an edge when you're at the races
1 of 1
By Eddie Fremantle
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
Ever since I was first taken racing at the age of about eight I have been thrilled by the excitement of the jockeys' colours, the noise of the horses and the crowd, the bookmakers and the punters. It is certainly not quite as thrilling for me these days after 50 years going to the races, but it is still the place where it all happens.
It must have helped me become a racing fan that I picked winners that first day at a point-to-point, just from their names, but it also helped that my mother had been brought up with horses in Devon before the war and had worked at a stud and a livery yard. She knew what they were supposed to look like and seemed to have that intangible gift for picking a winner from the paddock.
We went to Royal Ascot in the early 1970s and were leaving after the fifth race via the gate by the old pre-parade ring, where the runners for the last race were stretching their legs. We had a look at them on the way out and, after that, Mother told me that Zab would win. When we saw the result later and that Zab had indeed won, I questioned her about how she 'knew'.
She didn't 'know', of course, and she was not really able to put into words what she had seen that made her think Zab would win. It took me several years to see what she saw but sometimes I can see it – in a field of horses sometimes one stands out from the crowd. In this scientific age, with form ratings, speed ratings, sectional times and stride lengths, it is hard not to admit that to talk of this sort of instinctive paddock-watching sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo, but I feel it has its place alongside all the more technical methods of assessing a race.
When the paddock penny dropped is difficult to pinpoint but I do remember ringing Mother excitedly to tell her I had picked the winner of a Bath seller 'out of the paddock'. She didn't sound impressed, probably as I hadn't bothered to speak to her about anything else for a few weeks.
And there was another seller, a hurdle, at Southwell. I can still picture, in the old pre-parade ring that is now part of the golf course, the two horses from the Basil Richmond stable who looked so much better than their several opponents in that lowly handicap. Richmond was a wily old bird and you could be pretty sure that he enjoyed a little tickle as his pair finished first and second.
I like watching for smaller yards' horses in two-year-old races first time out when they shine in the paddock as they can be overlooked in the betting. A couple of examples resulting in huge-priced winners were Jelly Monger for Dominic Ffrench Davis at Salisbury and Ikigai for Ilka Gansera-Leveque at Yarmouth.
The on-course bookmakers used to be my main port of call for betting, but now it is rare for me even to enter the betting ring. It is easier to place bets online and most of my betting now is done on the exchanges near the time of the off. Yet I would still rather be on course before having a bet, even in these days when there seem to be fewer and fewer incentives to go racing.
The on-course bookies used to be Eddie Fremantle's first port of call, but now he uses the exchanges
The on-course bookies used to be Eddie Fremantle's first port of call, but now he uses the exchanges
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
There are other things to see when you go racing. The lad leading the horse up may have been scruffy last week but is wearing his best suit this week. The trainer who chainsmokes rather than having just the odd cigarette. The octogenarian owner in a wheelchair who has turned up to see his horse run. All may point to a better chance for the horse than you may have thought on form.
The chainsmoking pointer
One day at Huntingdon, all afternoon Jim Old was lighting another **** as soon as he had finished the previous one. He had a runner in the last race, a bumper, who trotted up at 14-1. And I was not popular with David Menuisier for pointing out on Racing UK one day that the trainer was smoking heavily as his partner thought he had kicked the habit – he had a double. Let Fagform be your guide.
On a spring Wednesday at Lingfield, Jim Boyle was wearing an old cardigan and had several days' of beard growth. He didn't have a winner. But two days later at the same course he was clean-shaven and wearing a suit. His runner was backed from 16-1, winning at 5-1. Boyle's appearance and the horse's win may have been coincidence, but it may have been a case of what I call Sartoriform.
The ideal day for watching the horses in the paddock is a cloudy but dry one, with decent temperatures so that the horses will not appear in rugs. Rugs to the paddock-watcher are a nuisance as you have to wait to see them come off when the jockeys are mounted to have a proper view of the horse. I would like horses to have to parade at least one circuit without rugs.
Watching horses as they build their careers can be most informative. So many start off doing things wrong in the preliminaries but their racing improves as their behaviour improves. I love to see a young horse run well despite being difficult or green in the paddock or on the way to the start as that suggests there will be much more to come.
If it is a sunny day I like to stand with the sun behind me, otherwise you need to wear a cap or hat to shield your eyes. Some of the more modern parade rings have not been ideally designed in his respect. For instance, if the sun is out at Kempton or Chelmsford it shines into the eyes of the paddock-watchers nearest the stands. My preference is to stand at a curve in the rail, if possible, as this gives me what I feel is the best view of the horses as they pass. I also like to be as near to the horses as possible and on the same level.
Steppings, floral arrangements, statues and other impingements to viewing around the paddock can be very annoying. There is a hedge around the paddock at Windsor that looks beautiful in the height of summer with yellow flowers, but it becomes harder to see the horses week by week as the hedge grows and more annoying to have to swipe at the insects that make their homes there.
Watching horses under artificial light is not ideal but the new lights at Southwell are by far the best of all the floodlit tracks.
The pre-parade ring used to be the first port of call but now so many horses are saddled in the stables and not in the boxes at the pre-parade that it is normally better to wait for them to come into the main paddock to see them all together.
Before a race you may see a horse who looks outstanding but you see him next time in perhaps a better race and he is outshone himself. Recently at Chelmsford, Elusif was seeking a four-timer. He was in good shape in the paddock, as he usually is, but he looked less classy than some of his opponents and duly finished out of the frame. He knocked a joint that day and that could have been the reason for his failure, but the paddock suggested he was out of his depth.
Relaxed but alert
I like to see horses relaxed but not wandering around as if they are half-asleep. A gleam on the coat is a positive, although a growth of winter coat can make things difficult in this regard as horses sometimes look pretty woolly if they have not been clipped. If that does not show them at their best, it probably has little effect on the way they run. Sweating is usually a negative – the more so on a cold day, although there are a few horses who tend to sweat, yet still run well.
There are a few other things to look out for in the paddock, and hoods being worn and bandaged legs are a couple.
There is a new rule that allows a hood, which must be red, to be worn to the start. Dubai Warrior wore the red hood before winning the Winter Derby while Pinnata was a recent red-hood winner at Kempton. That is a new angle to exploit.
Dubai Warrior: wore a hood to the start before winning the Winter Derby
Dubai Warrior: wore a hood to the start before winning the Winter Derby
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Some horses run without hind shoes and occasionally without shoes at all and some wear heavier steel plates rather than the more usual aluminium. Sometimes you can be helped by noticing equipment in the paddock. It was pointed out to me one day in 1988 that the sprinter Powder Blue was wearing work shoes for his reappearance. Powder Blue went on to win the Wokingham that year.
Yet there are also red herrings. The trainer Barry Stevens always used to put bandages on his horses' forelegs, green, yellow, blue or red. At one stage, my friend Deaf Paul and I used to think there was some sort of colour-coding related to the horses' chances of winning but, after some time trying to work out a pattern, we gave up.
Another bonus from going racing is to be able to watch the horses, particularly the young and inexperienced, canter to the start. At some racecourses, such as Newmarket, Goodwood and Brighton, the horses must canter past the stands to reach the start. However, at many courses now the punters are not given the chance as the horses go directly to post. This happens on the round courses at Newbury, Nottingham, Leicester and Sandown, among others. I don't think that is playing fair with the paying public.
Watching the field go to post, it is informative to look for a relaxed gait without too much energy being wasted. The action as a horse canters down can help assess whether they will act on the surface. A low, fluent, straight-legged action suggests fast ground, while a higher, rounder action can mean an animal that prefers cut.
Despite big screens being available for viewing, I prefer to watch races through binoculars from a vantage point somewhere inside the final furlong and then watch replays afterwards, giving two perspectives of the races. Betting in running is not for me because, by the time I thought it might be, the principal in-running punters had been at it for several years, so I stick to pre-race betting.
Even though I barely use them these days, I hope the on-course bookmakers survive as they do still provide colour and an alternative betting product to other outlets, but what we have seen in recent years is a steady decline in number and that suggests viability for these small businesses may be coming to an end. They enjoyed boom years when there was an off-course tax as that gave punters an incentive to go racing, but their margins were eroded by the advent of the exchanges. They would be able to survive in a system of an off-course Tote monopoly with high-street bookmakers acting as commission agents for that Tote. That is such a big change, though, that it is hard to see it happening.
For my part, I will continue to head to the races, watch the horses, the jockeys, the trainers and the owners and try to keep finding an edge.
Eddie Fremantle Q&A
What was your first bet?
In 1968, I was allowed to have not only my first bet but my first bet on credit, when my dad placed thruppence each-way on Red Alligator in the Grand National for me. I had made an extensive study of all the horses and Red Alligator had clearly the most bet-compelling name of all the runners. My pocket money was sixpence, so had the horse failed I would have been out of sherbet dip dabs the following week.
What was your biggest win?
There are three that stand out, all singles as I am not much of a multiple or jackpot punter.
When Martin Pipe's Sohrab won a Saturday handicap hurdle at Ascot in 1996 under Chris Maude, he was my biggest winner. He had run a tremendous race over a slightly longer trip at Exeter the time before. I started backing him at around 11-2 in the morning and the last bet I struck was at 8-1 with Stephen Little at the course. On the Friday, I had been feeling rather sorry for myself after a losing run and had fancied going for a quiet Saturday to a point-to-point with point expert Jonathan Neesom. But when I saw in the evening paper that Sohrab was running, I told Jonathan that I was heading back to Ascot. Apparently, the mobile betting shop at the point-to-point took a bit of a pounding from Sohrab's win.
Three years later Chris Kellett's Sylcan Express won a weak handicap hurdle at Towcester at 40-1. I had backed him with the three strongest course bookmakers – Jimmy Davies, Martin Davis and T & K Racing – at 66-1. Jimmy still has pitches and was in action at Chelmsford this week. Sylcan Express had been pulled up on his previous outing at Worcester on ground to soft when ridden by Richard Forristal, whose words you will have seen on these pages, but before that had run well at Wetherby.
Qualify (right) was a memorable Oaks winner for Eddie Fremantle
Qualify (right) was a memorable Oaks winner for Eddie Fremantle
Mark Cranham
The biggest touch of all was at a much more exalted level in the 2015 Oaks. I told my late friend, the racecourse bookmaker 'Racing' Raymond Winterton, on the Thursday that we should be on Qualify at 100-1. Raymond had so much faith in my selection that he just said: 'Ooh, I've never backed a 100-1 winner'. For once, the faith was justified as Qualify produced an extraordinary late run under Colm O’Donoghue to catch the favourite Legatissimo. The jockey and other connections were bemused when an extremely rotund Raymond was dancing around the winner's enclosure shouting, 'She should've been favourite'.
What was your most painful loser?
A significant four-figure sum went under when Cahervillahow was disqualified from the 1991 Whitbread after beating Docklands Express. I still can't work out how the stewards deemed fit to change the result. Nearly all that sum was lost in the inquiry.
What was the best punting advice you've ever received?
An old friend of my mother's took me to point-to-points when I was a teenager and told me off for betting without knowing the form properly. "You've got to do the form properly. Get the form books and study it. I know somebody who made £5,000 doing that last year," she said. That stuck with me and there still no substitute for crunching through the form. Although it's a very different process nowadays with computers and videos, in essence it is the same thing.
Global Racecourse Guide
Videos & Postcasts
Best of Members' Club
Racing Explained
Betting Masterclasses BETTING ON COURSE
Eddie Fremantle: how to get an edge when you're at the races
1 of 1
By Eddie Fremantle
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
Ever since I was first taken racing at the age of about eight I have been thrilled by the excitement of the jockeys' colours, the noise of the horses and the crowd, the bookmakers and the punters. It is certainly not quite as thrilling for me these days after 50 years going to the races, but it is still the place where it all happens.
It must have helped me become a racing fan that I picked winners that first day at a point-to-point, just from their names, but it also helped that my mother had been brought up with horses in Devon before the war and had worked at a stud and a livery yard. She knew what they were supposed to look like and seemed to have that intangible gift for picking a winner from the paddock.
We went to Royal Ascot in the early 1970s and were leaving after the fifth race via the gate by the old pre-parade ring, where the runners for the last race were stretching their legs. We had a look at them on the way out and, after that, Mother told me that Zab would win. When we saw the result later and that Zab had indeed won, I questioned her about how she 'knew'.
She didn't 'know', of course, and she was not really able to put into words what she had seen that made her think Zab would win. It took me several years to see what she saw but sometimes I can see it – in a field of horses sometimes one stands out from the crowd. In this scientific age, with form ratings, speed ratings, sectional times and stride lengths, it is hard not to admit that to talk of this sort of instinctive paddock-watching sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo, but I feel it has its place alongside all the more technical methods of assessing a race.
When the paddock penny dropped is difficult to pinpoint but I do remember ringing Mother excitedly to tell her I had picked the winner of a Bath seller 'out of the paddock'. She didn't sound impressed, probably as I hadn't bothered to speak to her about anything else for a few weeks.
And there was another seller, a hurdle, at Southwell. I can still picture, in the old pre-parade ring that is now part of the golf course, the two horses from the Basil Richmond stable who looked so much better than their several opponents in that lowly handicap. Richmond was a wily old bird and you could be pretty sure that he enjoyed a little tickle as his pair finished first and second.
I like watching for smaller yards' horses in two-year-old races first time out when they shine in the paddock as they can be overlooked in the betting. A couple of examples resulting in huge-priced winners were Jelly Monger for Dominic Ffrench Davis at Salisbury and Ikigai for Ilka Gansera-Leveque at Yarmouth.
The on-course bookmakers used to be my main port of call for betting, but now it is rare for me even to enter the betting ring. It is easier to place bets online and most of my betting now is done on the exchanges near the time of the off. Yet I would still rather be on course before having a bet, even in these days when there seem to be fewer and fewer incentives to go racing.
The on-course bookies used to be Eddie Fremantle's first port of call, but now he uses the exchanges
The on-course bookies used to be Eddie Fremantle's first port of call, but now he uses the exchanges
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
There are other things to see when you go racing. The lad leading the horse up may have been scruffy last week but is wearing his best suit this week. The trainer who chainsmokes rather than having just the odd cigarette. The octogenarian owner in a wheelchair who has turned up to see his horse run. All may point to a better chance for the horse than you may have thought on form.
The chainsmoking pointer
One day at Huntingdon, all afternoon Jim Old was lighting another **** as soon as he had finished the previous one. He had a runner in the last race, a bumper, who trotted up at 14-1. And I was not popular with David Menuisier for pointing out on Racing UK one day that the trainer was smoking heavily as his partner thought he had kicked the habit – he had a double. Let Fagform be your guide.
On a spring Wednesday at Lingfield, Jim Boyle was wearing an old cardigan and had several days' of beard growth. He didn't have a winner. But two days later at the same course he was clean-shaven and wearing a suit. His runner was backed from 16-1, winning at 5-1. Boyle's appearance and the horse's win may have been coincidence, but it may have been a case of what I call Sartoriform.
The ideal day for watching the horses in the paddock is a cloudy but dry one, with decent temperatures so that the horses will not appear in rugs. Rugs to the paddock-watcher are a nuisance as you have to wait to see them come off when the jockeys are mounted to have a proper view of the horse. I would like horses to have to parade at least one circuit without rugs.
Watching horses as they build their careers can be most informative. So many start off doing things wrong in the preliminaries but their racing improves as their behaviour improves. I love to see a young horse run well despite being difficult or green in the paddock or on the way to the start as that suggests there will be much more to come.
If it is a sunny day I like to stand with the sun behind me, otherwise you need to wear a cap or hat to shield your eyes. Some of the more modern parade rings have not been ideally designed in his respect. For instance, if the sun is out at Kempton or Chelmsford it shines into the eyes of the paddock-watchers nearest the stands. My preference is to stand at a curve in the rail, if possible, as this gives me what I feel is the best view of the horses as they pass. I also like to be as near to the horses as possible and on the same level.
Steppings, floral arrangements, statues and other impingements to viewing around the paddock can be very annoying. There is a hedge around the paddock at Windsor that looks beautiful in the height of summer with yellow flowers, but it becomes harder to see the horses week by week as the hedge grows and more annoying to have to swipe at the insects that make their homes there.
Watching horses under artificial light is not ideal but the new lights at Southwell are by far the best of all the floodlit tracks.
The pre-parade ring used to be the first port of call but now so many horses are saddled in the stables and not in the boxes at the pre-parade that it is normally better to wait for them to come into the main paddock to see them all together.
Before a race you may see a horse who looks outstanding but you see him next time in perhaps a better race and he is outshone himself. Recently at Chelmsford, Elusif was seeking a four-timer. He was in good shape in the paddock, as he usually is, but he looked less classy than some of his opponents and duly finished out of the frame. He knocked a joint that day and that could have been the reason for his failure, but the paddock suggested he was out of his depth.
Relaxed but alert
I like to see horses relaxed but not wandering around as if they are half-asleep. A gleam on the coat is a positive, although a growth of winter coat can make things difficult in this regard as horses sometimes look pretty woolly if they have not been clipped. If that does not show them at their best, it probably has little effect on the way they run. Sweating is usually a negative – the more so on a cold day, although there are a few horses who tend to sweat, yet still run well.
There are a few other things to look out for in the paddock, and hoods being worn and bandaged legs are a couple.
There is a new rule that allows a hood, which must be red, to be worn to the start. Dubai Warrior wore the red hood before winning the Winter Derby while Pinnata was a recent red-hood winner at Kempton. That is a new angle to exploit.
Dubai Warrior: wore a hood to the start before winning the Winter Derby
Dubai Warrior: wore a hood to the start before winning the Winter Derby
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Some horses run without hind shoes and occasionally without shoes at all and some wear heavier steel plates rather than the more usual aluminium. Sometimes you can be helped by noticing equipment in the paddock. It was pointed out to me one day in 1988 that the sprinter Powder Blue was wearing work shoes for his reappearance. Powder Blue went on to win the Wokingham that year.
Yet there are also red herrings. The trainer Barry Stevens always used to put bandages on his horses' forelegs, green, yellow, blue or red. At one stage, my friend Deaf Paul and I used to think there was some sort of colour-coding related to the horses' chances of winning but, after some time trying to work out a pattern, we gave up.
Another bonus from going racing is to be able to watch the horses, particularly the young and inexperienced, canter to the start. At some racecourses, such as Newmarket, Goodwood and Brighton, the horses must canter past the stands to reach the start. However, at many courses now the punters are not given the chance as the horses go directly to post. This happens on the round courses at Newbury, Nottingham, Leicester and Sandown, among others. I don't think that is playing fair with the paying public.
Watching the field go to post, it is informative to look for a relaxed gait without too much energy being wasted. The action as a horse canters down can help assess whether they will act on the surface. A low, fluent, straight-legged action suggests fast ground, while a higher, rounder action can mean an animal that prefers cut.
Despite big screens being available for viewing, I prefer to watch races through binoculars from a vantage point somewhere inside the final furlong and then watch replays afterwards, giving two perspectives of the races. Betting in running is not for me because, by the time I thought it might be, the principal in-running punters had been at it for several years, so I stick to pre-race betting.
Even though I barely use them these days, I hope the on-course bookmakers survive as they do still provide colour and an alternative betting product to other outlets, but what we have seen in recent years is a steady decline in number and that suggests viability for these small businesses may be coming to an end. They enjoyed boom years when there was an off-course tax as that gave punters an incentive to go racing, but their margins were eroded by the advent of the exchanges. They would be able to survive in a system of an off-course Tote monopoly with high-street bookmakers acting as commission agents for that Tote. That is such a big change, though, that it is hard to see it happening.
For my part, I will continue to head to the races, watch the horses, the jockeys, the trainers and the owners and try to keep finding an edge.
Eddie Fremantle Q&A
What was your first bet?
In 1968, I was allowed to have not only my first bet but my first bet on credit, when my dad placed thruppence each-way on Red Alligator in the Grand National for me. I had made an extensive study of all the horses and Red Alligator had clearly the most bet-compelling name of all the runners. My pocket money was sixpence, so had the horse failed I would have been out of sherbet dip dabs the following week.
What was your biggest win?
There are three that stand out, all singles as I am not much of a multiple or jackpot punter.
When Martin Pipe's Sohrab won a Saturday handicap hurdle at Ascot in 1996 under Chris Maude, he was my biggest winner. He had run a tremendous race over a slightly longer trip at Exeter the time before. I started backing him at around 11-2 in the morning and the last bet I struck was at 8-1 with Stephen Little at the course. On the Friday, I had been feeling rather sorry for myself after a losing run and had fancied going for a quiet Saturday to a point-to-point with point expert Jonathan Neesom. But when I saw in the evening paper that Sohrab was running, I told Jonathan that I was heading back to Ascot. Apparently, the mobile betting shop at the point-to-point took a bit of a pounding from Sohrab's win.
Three years later Chris Kellett's Sylcan Express won a weak handicap hurdle at Towcester at 40-1. I had backed him with the three strongest course bookmakers – Jimmy Davies, Martin Davis and T & K Racing – at 66-1. Jimmy still has pitches and was in action at Chelmsford this week. Sylcan Express had been pulled up on his previous outing at Worcester on ground to soft when ridden by Richard Forristal, whose words you will have seen on these pages, but before that had run well at Wetherby.
Qualify (right) was a memorable Oaks winner for Eddie Fremantle
Qualify (right) was a memorable Oaks winner for Eddie Fremantle
Mark Cranham
The biggest touch of all was at a much more exalted level in the 2015 Oaks. I told my late friend, the racecourse bookmaker 'Racing' Raymond Winterton, on the Thursday that we should be on Qualify at 100-1. Raymond had so much faith in my selection that he just said: 'Ooh, I've never backed a 100-1 winner'. For once, the faith was justified as Qualify produced an extraordinary late run under Colm O’Donoghue to catch the favourite Legatissimo. The jockey and other connections were bemused when an extremely rotund Raymond was dancing around the winner's enclosure shouting, 'She should've been favourite'.
What was your most painful loser?
A significant four-figure sum went under when Cahervillahow was disqualified from the 1991 Whitbread after beating Docklands Express. I still can't work out how the stewards deemed fit to change the result. Nearly all that sum was lost in the inquiry.
What was the best punting advice you've ever received?
An old friend of my mother's took me to point-to-points when I was a teenager and told me off for betting without knowing the form properly. "You've got to do the form properly. Get the form books and study it. I know somebody who made £5,000 doing that last year," she said. That stuck with me and there still no substitute for crunching through the form. Although it's a very different process nowadays with computers and videos, in essence it is the same thing.
hell o everyone !
i'm doing fine thanks.
thankful for where i live - so much open space to wander around in !
hope you guys are doing ok too
i'm doing fine thanks.
thankful for where i live - so much open space to wander around in !
hope you guys are doing ok too
a big thank you to Deltâ, that's much appreciated pal - top man
if there are any more on that list raz' let me know the titles and will post
Deltâ there is about 16 or so in total ! they're all on the RP website.
thanks again.
thanks again.
Good morning Deltâ, another nice sunny day up here
If you need me :-
I'll be in the garden with a large mug of tea reading through what you very kindly posted yesterday !!
BTW good morning to STATSMAN too - hope you're well.
If you need me :-
I'll be in the garden with a large mug of tea reading through what you very kindly posted yesterday !!
BTW good morning to STATSMAN too - hope you're well.
Assuming you can get on, there has probably never been a better time to be a serious student of form in horseracing.
Of course, getting on is the bane of anyone who takes racing seriously, but we all know someone who can get a bet on for us. It's a pain, but we just have to work that bit harder.
If you're a serious racing bettor, you will be aware that bookmakers simply don't want your business. You are outside their target demographic – the lazy punter.
The lazy punter represents the vast majority of people who place a bet, which is why sports like football are so popular. It is easy to price up and easy to have an opinion about without much serious thought.
There are, of course, plenty of serious football bettors too (and they face the same problems getting on as serious racing punters), but as far as bookmakers are concerned it is a mass mug market. You only have to witness the popularity of their both teams to score coupons to see why.
Both teams to score is a simple two-way bet: will they both score? Yes or no. Punters up and down the land place their midweek/weekend accumulators and almost nobody ever bets on no. Whenever I speak to someone in a pub or bookmakers who has placed this bet, I always ask the question and so far not one person I have spoken to has ever done anything other than an acca requiring every team in it to score.
A horse race is a far more complex puzzle and it's because it is so complex that serious form study enables you to get an edge over bookmakers.
The reasons for this are simple enough. We don't have to look at every race. They do. We can take our time. They can't.
When I joined the Racing Post in the late 1980s, we had to wait until around 11-11.30am for bookmakers to price up maybe a couple of handicaps taking place later that afternoon (unless there was a major meeting).
These days, when by all accounts there are far fewer odds-compilers than at any time in British bookmaking history, every race is priced up by around 5.30pm the night before by virtually every bookmaker – with many races priced by one particular firm just a couple of hours after the declarations are made.
It is simply not possible to pump out prices for anywhere between 20 and 60 (in the height of summer) races a day at that speed without making a stack of errors.
Whoever decided on this policy of flooding the marketplace as soon as possible has put serious pressure on their odds-compilers, but we can either feel sorry for them or bet. So let's bet.
Paul was quick to latch on to Imperial Aura (left) this season after he caught the eye when going too fast in front on his return over hurdles - he subsequently tipped him at 33-1 for the novice handicap chase at Cheltenham last week
Paul was quick to latch on to Imperial Aura (left) this season after he caught the eye when going too fast in front on his return over hurdles - he subsequently tipped him at 33-1 for the novice handicap chase at Cheltenham last week
Edward Whitaker
As mentioned earlier, one of our greatest weapons is the freedom to be selective. There is simply no way you can study every race every day and expect to have been thorough enough.
When I'm tipping for the Racing Post I tend to choose around five races to start with, normally the most competitive handicaps on the cards – and even then during the jumps season I will start on them with entries from the five-day stage. You can obviously waste some time when the entries are made, but there are time constraints with tipping so I like to get a head start.
The reason I choose that type of race is because I don't particularly like tipping short-priced favourites, but you can obviously tailor your type of race by your betting preference.
Form study is as old as the sport itself, but it's a lot easier these days now you have everything you need online. Gone are the days when you had to carry a stack of form books around in a rucksack.
There is no great secret to form study. You simply look at the results, check how races have worked out, watch videos, etc.
I'll leave speed figures and sectionals in this series to someone better versed in them – I'm getting into it, but still have a lot to learn – but what I find to be my most valuable tool is ratings.
There are various different ratings services available, and I'm not going to talk down any of our rivals, but as I've spent nearly all my working life at the Racing Post it won't be a surprise that I've focused solely on Racing Post Ratings.
I use them as a starting point in a couple of ways: as a quick reference to the standard of form in races in which there are no official handicap marks, and as a second opinion against that of the official handicapper in races in which there is plenty of form to go on.
You can of course produce your own ratings, but bear in mind the BHA has a team of handicappers with some focusing solely on a specific distance and it's far too much to do on your own.
Form figures of 432 can represent form considerably weaker performances than form figures of 857 for instance, and ratings can help you see that pretty quickly.
Otherwise it's just a case of spending as much time as you can looking through the form of as many horses as possible.
For as long as has been possible, I have done this by starting with the RPR top-rated and working downwards (you can customise the card to list in several different orders, one of them being RPRs), rather than using the betting as a guide.
It makes you look at horses you might not get to by going in betting order, and is a reminder that while the betting may say otherwise, most handicaps are a lot tighter than you may think.
The RPR figure you will see on the racecard will be adjusted to the weight carried in the race and represents the best piece of form each horse has shown in the last 12 months, not necessarily their last-time-out effort, while an official handicap mark reflects what the BHA handicapper thinks the horse is capable of now.
It is then up to you to decide how likely each horse is to run to that level given the conditions (course, trip, going, trainer form, horse form, size of field, etc).
There are no shortcuts. It's simply about hard work. But if you put more in than any compiler feasibly can given the amount of races they have to cover, you'll soon be able to spot their errors.
Pricing up a race
Coming up with a tissue for a race is easy. Coming up with an accurate one, less so.
However, when it comes to pricing up races for yourself, parity with the actual market is not so important. A Racing Post Spotlight writer, for example, has to try to predict how the betting will be, not how they think it should be.
Punters who want to back horses from the top stables tend to pay a premium on the price and there is just one trainer – Nicky Henderson – in the top ten in the current jumps racing table whose horses are profitable to follow at 2-1 or under.
Indeed, if you had backed every one of them blind since 2015 you'd have lost around £300 to a £1 stake.
That's not because they're bad trainers, but because bookmakers are wary of them and they know punter habits.
When you start pricing up a race yourself, don't be surprised if you end up opposing the big yards more often than you'd expect.
A horse's odds can be expressed in terms of percentage chance quite easily. In terms of fractional odds you just add 1 to the price and then divide into 100. For instance 6/1= 100/7= 14.28 per cent.
For decimal odds, which obviously include stake, you simply divide into 100. Therefore 3.2= 100/3.2= 31.25%.
Your book comprising all runners should theoretically add up to 100 per cent, which will give you a 'true' chance of winning rather than include built-in bookmakers' profit margins.
Your first port of call should be to find the likely favourite and then the second favourite as it will give you an idea of how the rest will fall into place.
It takes time to get used to doing it, and if you're only starting your study after a day's work when the actual prices are already out there you may consider it a waste of time.
However, getting a feel for how betting markets work is a good idea and will give you an idea of how your interpretation of form measures up.
I can still make plenty of mistakes – as everyone can – but when I first started to price up races it made me realise just how much I had to learn.
Paul Kealy Q&A
What was your first bet?
Boring but true, it was Red Rum in the 1977 Grand National when he won for the third time. I was nine.
What was your biggest win?
I've never chopped it right off but I had a multiple that came to £15,000 about ten years ago.
What was your most painful loser?
In said multiple, I tossed up between two horses in one race at Beverley. The one I backed came last, the other one won at 11-1. It would have come to £275,000.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
Never fear a drifter. If you think something is a bet at 8-1 and it goes out to 10-1, have more on.
Keith Melrose on the art of reading a race
A large subset of punters love to hear quotes from trainers, jockeys and others connected with racing. The reason for this is that they know the value of insider knowledge, information that is not in the public domain.
If you bet using collateral form, handicap ratings, speed figures, pedigrees or statistics, you are using something that is available to the wider racing public. More than that, these factors are all written down, so anyone who got through school has the same capacity to understand them as the most sophisticated punter.
Paddock and gallops-watching are available to a more select audience, but neither are yet broadcast in full.
The most valuable resource in all of racing analysis, in my view, is the database of racing replays that allow punters to evaluate any race for ourselves. We all know what form figures imply, but only by watching races can we tell what they actually mean.
Interpretation of a race goes from the macro to the micro. Last week's Ballymore tested stamina, which tells us plenty about where Envoi Allen should go next season, but was Minella Indo staying on again in the last 50 yards of the RSA or was he just slowing less than Allaho?
The RSA: was Minella Indo (centre) staying on again or just slowing down less than Allaho (right)?
The RSA: was Minella Indo (centre) staying on again or just slowing down less than Allaho (right)?
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
The most important single factor in race-reading is the pace of a race. To get the best handle on a race, it is not quite enough to know that they went slowly or evenly. Exactly where the pace picked up, how far out they truly started racing, is how to get the most satisfactory picture. A horse that moved forward at the hottest part of the race is an obvious type to mark up, if it can be spotted.
Do not be too proud to use a stopwatch. No one gets the fractions right by eye every time and what has historically marked out the best race-readers is an ability to get it right more often than others. Timing tools, of which sectionals would be the most famous example, level the playing field – even though they are increasingly public property.
I tend to use fairly basic sectionals on an ad hoc basis. Finishing speed percentages (which are pretty easy to record over fences) and direct comparison between course-and-distance races on the same card would be about as far as I feel I need to go.
When judging the pace by eye, people are often instructed to look out for certain signifiers in the horses, or the field as a whole. Are a few of them pulling? Has the field been strung out by the early pace? These can be helpful, but in my experience they throw up false positives too often to become something to rely upon.
Feel developed by experience is the best way, if not the easiest. It is another point in the case for specialisation. While I would be pretty confident in identifying when a field of 120-rated three-mile chasers are going too fast, I would not have so much faith in judging a Listed race over 7f and would be more inclined to reach for the watch.
The other main thing to note is horse behaviour. Horses who hang in behind, jump a certain way or drop the bit on a quiet jockey are all worth noting. Horses can change their lead legs, which can be a sign of discomfort on the ground or the track, but this is only a rule of thumb.
Assessing races can be an end in itself. It feels like telling on oneself to admit as much. I am no psychologist, but it seems logical to assume that figuring out why certain things have happened in a race stimulates the same parts of the brain as, say, doing a crossword on the morning commute.
The great thing about studying form and races is that it has a wider application, one which we can even win a bit of money from. The points of form study are obvious. For race-reading, the headline benefits are equally so. There are also a host of other factors that can only really be built up with a large bank of race replays.
For one, it is a practice of increasing returns. The 100th race you study will tell you more than the first, as knowledge of the horses and environmental factors (course topography and the like) increases. If you are familiar with seven of the eight horses in a race, studying it ought to tell you plenty about the eighth. Being across the form to such an extent, which I cannot profess to be all of the time, is a huge psychological help as well as a practical one.
On top of that, races can be extrapolated out to draw conclusions on the human participants as well as the equine. One of my favourite angles is trainer form, which will be discussed in detail in a later piece in this series. Trainers are not just good or bad. For many, their horses have certain traits common to many of the yards runners that can only be picked up by watching lots of races.
A similar story applies for jockeys. Knowing how certain jockeys ride, how inclined they are to grasp the nettle or wedded they are to holding up horses, can help pick apart how small-field races in particular might play out.
While there may be a temptation sometimes to only watch the closing stages of a race, this is to be resisted wherever possible. At best, you will get the 80-20 result (four-fifths of the return for a fifth of the effort). You will inevitably be bitten on the backside sometimes, though, as what happens in the later stages of the race is quite often affected by what has gone on earlier. Just look at last week's Stayers' Hurdle. Watch the last half-mile and you would have no concept of how Apple's Jade had blown the race apart.
Of course, getting on is the bane of anyone who takes racing seriously, but we all know someone who can get a bet on for us. It's a pain, but we just have to work that bit harder.
If you're a serious racing bettor, you will be aware that bookmakers simply don't want your business. You are outside their target demographic – the lazy punter.
The lazy punter represents the vast majority of people who place a bet, which is why sports like football are so popular. It is easy to price up and easy to have an opinion about without much serious thought.
There are, of course, plenty of serious football bettors too (and they face the same problems getting on as serious racing punters), but as far as bookmakers are concerned it is a mass mug market. You only have to witness the popularity of their both teams to score coupons to see why.
Both teams to score is a simple two-way bet: will they both score? Yes or no. Punters up and down the land place their midweek/weekend accumulators and almost nobody ever bets on no. Whenever I speak to someone in a pub or bookmakers who has placed this bet, I always ask the question and so far not one person I have spoken to has ever done anything other than an acca requiring every team in it to score.
A horse race is a far more complex puzzle and it's because it is so complex that serious form study enables you to get an edge over bookmakers.
The reasons for this are simple enough. We don't have to look at every race. They do. We can take our time. They can't.
When I joined the Racing Post in the late 1980s, we had to wait until around 11-11.30am for bookmakers to price up maybe a couple of handicaps taking place later that afternoon (unless there was a major meeting).
These days, when by all accounts there are far fewer odds-compilers than at any time in British bookmaking history, every race is priced up by around 5.30pm the night before by virtually every bookmaker – with many races priced by one particular firm just a couple of hours after the declarations are made.
It is simply not possible to pump out prices for anywhere between 20 and 60 (in the height of summer) races a day at that speed without making a stack of errors.
Whoever decided on this policy of flooding the marketplace as soon as possible has put serious pressure on their odds-compilers, but we can either feel sorry for them or bet. So let's bet.
Paul was quick to latch on to Imperial Aura (left) this season after he caught the eye when going too fast in front on his return over hurdles - he subsequently tipped him at 33-1 for the novice handicap chase at Cheltenham last week
Paul was quick to latch on to Imperial Aura (left) this season after he caught the eye when going too fast in front on his return over hurdles - he subsequently tipped him at 33-1 for the novice handicap chase at Cheltenham last week
Edward Whitaker
As mentioned earlier, one of our greatest weapons is the freedom to be selective. There is simply no way you can study every race every day and expect to have been thorough enough.
When I'm tipping for the Racing Post I tend to choose around five races to start with, normally the most competitive handicaps on the cards – and even then during the jumps season I will start on them with entries from the five-day stage. You can obviously waste some time when the entries are made, but there are time constraints with tipping so I like to get a head start.
The reason I choose that type of race is because I don't particularly like tipping short-priced favourites, but you can obviously tailor your type of race by your betting preference.
Form study is as old as the sport itself, but it's a lot easier these days now you have everything you need online. Gone are the days when you had to carry a stack of form books around in a rucksack.
There is no great secret to form study. You simply look at the results, check how races have worked out, watch videos, etc.
I'll leave speed figures and sectionals in this series to someone better versed in them – I'm getting into it, but still have a lot to learn – but what I find to be my most valuable tool is ratings.
There are various different ratings services available, and I'm not going to talk down any of our rivals, but as I've spent nearly all my working life at the Racing Post it won't be a surprise that I've focused solely on Racing Post Ratings.
I use them as a starting point in a couple of ways: as a quick reference to the standard of form in races in which there are no official handicap marks, and as a second opinion against that of the official handicapper in races in which there is plenty of form to go on.
You can of course produce your own ratings, but bear in mind the BHA has a team of handicappers with some focusing solely on a specific distance and it's far too much to do on your own.
Form figures of 432 can represent form considerably weaker performances than form figures of 857 for instance, and ratings can help you see that pretty quickly.
Otherwise it's just a case of spending as much time as you can looking through the form of as many horses as possible.
For as long as has been possible, I have done this by starting with the RPR top-rated and working downwards (you can customise the card to list in several different orders, one of them being RPRs), rather than using the betting as a guide.
It makes you look at horses you might not get to by going in betting order, and is a reminder that while the betting may say otherwise, most handicaps are a lot tighter than you may think.
The RPR figure you will see on the racecard will be adjusted to the weight carried in the race and represents the best piece of form each horse has shown in the last 12 months, not necessarily their last-time-out effort, while an official handicap mark reflects what the BHA handicapper thinks the horse is capable of now.
It is then up to you to decide how likely each horse is to run to that level given the conditions (course, trip, going, trainer form, horse form, size of field, etc).
There are no shortcuts. It's simply about hard work. But if you put more in than any compiler feasibly can given the amount of races they have to cover, you'll soon be able to spot their errors.
Pricing up a race
Coming up with a tissue for a race is easy. Coming up with an accurate one, less so.
However, when it comes to pricing up races for yourself, parity with the actual market is not so important. A Racing Post Spotlight writer, for example, has to try to predict how the betting will be, not how they think it should be.
Punters who want to back horses from the top stables tend to pay a premium on the price and there is just one trainer – Nicky Henderson – in the top ten in the current jumps racing table whose horses are profitable to follow at 2-1 or under.
Indeed, if you had backed every one of them blind since 2015 you'd have lost around £300 to a £1 stake.
That's not because they're bad trainers, but because bookmakers are wary of them and they know punter habits.
When you start pricing up a race yourself, don't be surprised if you end up opposing the big yards more often than you'd expect.
A horse's odds can be expressed in terms of percentage chance quite easily. In terms of fractional odds you just add 1 to the price and then divide into 100. For instance 6/1= 100/7= 14.28 per cent.
For decimal odds, which obviously include stake, you simply divide into 100. Therefore 3.2= 100/3.2= 31.25%.
Your book comprising all runners should theoretically add up to 100 per cent, which will give you a 'true' chance of winning rather than include built-in bookmakers' profit margins.
Your first port of call should be to find the likely favourite and then the second favourite as it will give you an idea of how the rest will fall into place.
It takes time to get used to doing it, and if you're only starting your study after a day's work when the actual prices are already out there you may consider it a waste of time.
However, getting a feel for how betting markets work is a good idea and will give you an idea of how your interpretation of form measures up.
I can still make plenty of mistakes – as everyone can – but when I first started to price up races it made me realise just how much I had to learn.
Paul Kealy Q&A
What was your first bet?
Boring but true, it was Red Rum in the 1977 Grand National when he won for the third time. I was nine.
What was your biggest win?
I've never chopped it right off but I had a multiple that came to £15,000 about ten years ago.
What was your most painful loser?
In said multiple, I tossed up between two horses in one race at Beverley. The one I backed came last, the other one won at 11-1. It would have come to £275,000.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
Never fear a drifter. If you think something is a bet at 8-1 and it goes out to 10-1, have more on.
Keith Melrose on the art of reading a race
A large subset of punters love to hear quotes from trainers, jockeys and others connected with racing. The reason for this is that they know the value of insider knowledge, information that is not in the public domain.
If you bet using collateral form, handicap ratings, speed figures, pedigrees or statistics, you are using something that is available to the wider racing public. More than that, these factors are all written down, so anyone who got through school has the same capacity to understand them as the most sophisticated punter.
Paddock and gallops-watching are available to a more select audience, but neither are yet broadcast in full.
The most valuable resource in all of racing analysis, in my view, is the database of racing replays that allow punters to evaluate any race for ourselves. We all know what form figures imply, but only by watching races can we tell what they actually mean.
Interpretation of a race goes from the macro to the micro. Last week's Ballymore tested stamina, which tells us plenty about where Envoi Allen should go next season, but was Minella Indo staying on again in the last 50 yards of the RSA or was he just slowing less than Allaho?
The RSA: was Minella Indo (centre) staying on again or just slowing down less than Allaho (right)?
The RSA: was Minella Indo (centre) staying on again or just slowing down less than Allaho (right)?
John Grossick (racingpost.com/photos)
The most important single factor in race-reading is the pace of a race. To get the best handle on a race, it is not quite enough to know that they went slowly or evenly. Exactly where the pace picked up, how far out they truly started racing, is how to get the most satisfactory picture. A horse that moved forward at the hottest part of the race is an obvious type to mark up, if it can be spotted.
Do not be too proud to use a stopwatch. No one gets the fractions right by eye every time and what has historically marked out the best race-readers is an ability to get it right more often than others. Timing tools, of which sectionals would be the most famous example, level the playing field – even though they are increasingly public property.
I tend to use fairly basic sectionals on an ad hoc basis. Finishing speed percentages (which are pretty easy to record over fences) and direct comparison between course-and-distance races on the same card would be about as far as I feel I need to go.
When judging the pace by eye, people are often instructed to look out for certain signifiers in the horses, or the field as a whole. Are a few of them pulling? Has the field been strung out by the early pace? These can be helpful, but in my experience they throw up false positives too often to become something to rely upon.
Feel developed by experience is the best way, if not the easiest. It is another point in the case for specialisation. While I would be pretty confident in identifying when a field of 120-rated three-mile chasers are going too fast, I would not have so much faith in judging a Listed race over 7f and would be more inclined to reach for the watch.
The other main thing to note is horse behaviour. Horses who hang in behind, jump a certain way or drop the bit on a quiet jockey are all worth noting. Horses can change their lead legs, which can be a sign of discomfort on the ground or the track, but this is only a rule of thumb.
Assessing races can be an end in itself. It feels like telling on oneself to admit as much. I am no psychologist, but it seems logical to assume that figuring out why certain things have happened in a race stimulates the same parts of the brain as, say, doing a crossword on the morning commute.
The great thing about studying form and races is that it has a wider application, one which we can even win a bit of money from. The points of form study are obvious. For race-reading, the headline benefits are equally so. There are also a host of other factors that can only really be built up with a large bank of race replays.
For one, it is a practice of increasing returns. The 100th race you study will tell you more than the first, as knowledge of the horses and environmental factors (course topography and the like) increases. If you are familiar with seven of the eight horses in a race, studying it ought to tell you plenty about the eighth. Being across the form to such an extent, which I cannot profess to be all of the time, is a huge psychological help as well as a practical one.
On top of that, races can be extrapolated out to draw conclusions on the human participants as well as the equine. One of my favourite angles is trainer form, which will be discussed in detail in a later piece in this series. Trainers are not just good or bad. For many, their horses have certain traits common to many of the yards runners that can only be picked up by watching lots of races.
A similar story applies for jockeys. Knowing how certain jockeys ride, how inclined they are to grasp the nettle or wedded they are to holding up horses, can help pick apart how small-field races in particular might play out.
While there may be a temptation sometimes to only watch the closing stages of a race, this is to be resisted wherever possible. At best, you will get the 80-20 result (four-fifths of the return for a fifth of the effort). You will inevitably be bitten on the backside sometimes, though, as what happens in the later stages of the race is quite often affected by what has gone on earlier. Just look at last week's Stayers' Hurdle. Watch the last half-mile and you would have no concept of how Apple's Jade had blown the race apart.
What's the main attraction of being a full-time gambler? That was the first question that struck me when I was asked to share my experiences of several decades as a serious horseracing punter and 15 years with no other source of income.
Well, everyone has their own individual motivations. Being able to control when and where you work, not being answerable to anyone else, having the opportunity to make more money than a regular nine-to-five job could provide – all seem perfectly valid reasons for taking the plunge.
For me, from an early age, puzzle-solving was always the most appealing aspect of following horseracing, the working-out at least as satisfying as collecting the cash from a winning bet. And after many years of betting reasonably successfully alongside a full-time job, I simply wanted to see if I could take things to a different level. In theory at least, having an extra 40 hours a week to hone my analytical skills and explore new approaches would enable me to do just that.
Long before I was legally allowed to bet, I'd become hooked on the ritual of Saturday afternoons in front of the TV in the company of Bachelor's Hall, Julio Mariner, Sharpo and Red Rum. And before long, simply watching those animals run wasn't enough.
I wanted to know why Night Nurse would beat Monksfield on one occasion but not another, why under certain circumstances Sea Pigeon might beat them both, and why Birds Nest seemed capable of finishing in front of each of those rivals in some races but never all of them at the same time.
In the first few years of trying to solve the riddles, my selection methods changed radically. Early attempts at devising winning "systems" predictably proved naive and short-lived, but stumbling across one of Peter Jones's Trainers Record books in the mid-1980s proved revelatory.
Suddenly it became possible to study, and even to quantify, the competence of the people responsible for the fitness and education of the horses I was following every day. Those books are long gone, but statistics breaking down trainers' achievements by course, type of race, time of year and so on have never been more comprehensive or readily available. Trying to understand the habits, talents and shortcomings of the different members of the training profession remains pivotal to my punting methodology.
The next game-changer for me was the introduction of televised coverage of all races, available first in betting shops, later via the specialist racing channels. Instead of having to rely on others' reports of horses meeting trouble in running, being set too much to do or forcing too strong a gallop, the visual evidence was now available at home. All you needed was a VCR and plenty of free time.
Gradually, imperceptibly, by watching hundreds of races, I became better equipped to identify the factors that would prove essential in unearthing future bets. It seems glaringly obvious now, but it was something of a breakthrough to realise that, while the result of a race was in the public domain, the complex series of events involved in shaping it were not.
Decades later, trying to understand the mechanics of each race remains the holy grail. Which horses were seen to maximum effect and might be opposable next time? Which ones were at a disadvantage by the way the race developed? Identifying an unexpected draw bias, or a golden strip of ground near a rail, or the impact of a strong headwind, is more important in the long term than finding individual winners.
Each day brings a different set of puzzles, and trying to solve all of them is impossible if you want any kind of life outside the betting bubble. To state the obvious, specialisation is key. Over time, after years of trial and error, it dawned on me that my chief strength was in spotting the potential of horses early in their career, so bumpers, novice hurdles and two-year-old races now form the mainstay of my punting. It helps that I enjoy poring over horses' pedigrees, something some punters overlook.
I have friends who crunch numbers and analyse times and sections of races to gain a sophisticated understanding of the sport, others who put a red circle around every fixture at Southwell because their specialist knowledge of Fibresand form gives them an edge. Some people I know won't have a bet unless they're present at the track to view the horses in the paddock, their angle coming from seeing things the majority of us miss. All these approaches are valid, if they work, though personally I don't own a stopwatch, rarely bet at Southwell and usually glean no more from paddock inspection than that most of the horses in it are brown and have four legs.
The lion's share of my bets spring from notes made watching previous races. So a horse I've noticed jumping right and losing ground on a left-handed track becomes a potential wager when he runs on a right-handed course. A horse whose poor efforts coincided with his trainer enduring a prolonged slump in form becomes worthy of consideration when the stable is back on the up.
These observations used to be recorded long-hand, which meant that making and consulting notes was laborious, but nowadays I use one of the many websites which allow you to store your own comments digitally and call them up at the click of a mouse.
How to add notes on horse profiles on the Racing Post website
On the other hand, I'm generally not a fan of using a "tracker" loaded with horses to follow. Too often one feels obliged to back the horse in question regardless of the conditions or opposition. Approaching each race with an open mind is a crucial part of logical form study, and I find that hard to do if I already feel committed to one of its contestants.
On a related note, in order to avoid any sort of prejudice, I'd rather not know the odds available until I've completed a thorough study of each race. I rarely compile a full tissue of prices, but usually have a rough idea of the odds at which I'm prepared to back the horses I'm interested in.
I've also learned, from my own mistakes, not to be tempted to cut corners with race-reading. If I'm looking back at a two-mile race, I'll watch it all rather than just the closing stages. If a horse finishes weakly, for example, it could be the result of expending too much energy by pulling hard early on. Watch only the second half of the race and you could be missing an important piece of the jigsaw.
The thorny topic of "getting on" is perhaps the most contentious aspect of betting in the current era, and all punters, whether full-time, semi-serious or purely recreational, will have their own individual experiences.
From my point of view, the golden age was around the turn of the century: I was able to bet with half a dozen different bookmakers, and at that time you could win reasonable amounts before accounts were closed or severely restricted.
It was also easier to benefit from ricks because bookmakers did not put up prices on run-of-the-mill racing the night before. The markets went up on the morning of the race, and it was relatively straightforward for clued-up punters to identify overpriced horses and back them. Even if you'd already been shown the door by certain bookmakers, a betting exchange such as Betfair was a viable alternative.
Fast-forward 20 years and away from the big meetings there are often now only tiny amounts available to back or lay on the betting exchanges until minutes before the race begins. Recreational punters, who once bolstered the liquidity on Betfair, have migrated back to traditional bookmakers, understandably attracted by concessions such as Best Odds Guaranteed. Bookmakers use overnight markets as a means of getting their cards marked, chopping the odds of many of the interesting horses while laying just fivers or tenners.
Betfair Exchange: key for many pro punters
As a result there's no doubt I work harder to win less these days. With virtually no access to bookmakers' prices, I do almost all my betting on the exchanges close to the off, and the nearer to a race's off time you bet the lower your expectations will be in terms of return on investment.
But it's not all doom and gloom. Being forced to play your cards late can have its upsides. For example, spot a normally relaxed horse in a muck sweat, or another bolting to post? If you're betting solely in the few minutes before the race starts, there's still time to use this information to your advantage.
The effort of getting a bet on preoccupies most serious punters more than any other subject these days, but for those contemplating a switch to professional gambling the psychological element needs considering too.
The most knowledgeable racing experts do not necessarily make the best gamblers. When I went full-time I found that the lack of a financial safety net focused my mind, but for others there will be a big difference mentally between supplementing your wage with profitable punting and having no other way of paying the bills. Temperament is key.
Losing runs still hurt, but decades of punting leave you with a thick skin. Unless you're consistently backing at very short prices, you become used to being wrong, a lot, and that's fine. If you're regularly backing 20-1 shots and they lose 90 per cent of the time you're still making a very good profit.
That's not to say, however, the spectre of losing one's touch doesn't lurk in the background for many punters. Learning neither to get overly high when times are good nor despondent when the winners dry up helps maintain the equilibrium.
In my early days of betting full-time, the peaks and troughs felt more pronounced. Most of my biggest wins came during the few years from 2005 onwards, but sobering losing days were more acute in that period. In the last few years I've become more comfortable accumulating singles than trying to hit boundaries.
Whatever your modus operandi, it goes without saying that keeping honest records of profit and loss is essential. If you're a selective punter, having only a handful of bets a week, it's straightforward to log every wager with a breakdown of race type, course, price, etc. If, like me, you have a more scattergun approach with plenty of bets every day, a more basic end-of-day profit/loss record will suffice.
The future of horseracing, and of betting in general, is perhaps less certain today than at any point during my career. Hundreds of betting shops have closed recently and the threat of increased government regulation hangs over the industry. In ten or 20 years' time the landscape could be unrecognisable.
But for now the challenge remains the same for me as it was in the days of Sharpo and Red Rum. The fun to be had from trying to solve racing's endlessly fascinating puzzles means that punting still doesn't feel like a job. Winning isn't easy, but with a mixture of creativity, discipline and hard work it's still perfectly possible to combine business with pleasure every day.
Trainer trends can provide key pointers
Taking particular notice of the way trainers operate in certain types of races can throw up bet-compelling trends.
It struck me a few years ago that, while Dan Skelton's record in bumpers was reasonable overall, his runners seemed to improve more than the norm for the experience of having a race or two under their belt. Sure enough, a Raceform Interactive search confirmed that horses persevered with by Skelton in bumpers for a third or fourth outing hit the target with a strike rate nearly three times that of the yard's debutants.
Bumper stats: eyecatching figures for Ruth Jefferson and Dan Skelton
Similarly, look at how much Ruth Jefferson's strike-rate jumps when she runs one in a bumper for a second time as opposed to first time out.
Small but useful pieces of information to help in the quest for winners.
Q&A
What was your first bet?
Nereo, Grand National, 1974. Ridden by the 54-year-old Duke of Alburquerque in a plaster cast after he'd broken his collarbone in a fall the previous week and finished a distant eighth. An early lesson that jockeyship can be crucial.
What was your biggest win?
5p each-way the following year on L'Escargot, who denied hot favourite Red Rum a hat-trick of Grand Nationals. In hindsight the bet that got me hooked.
What was your most painful loser?
Almost impossible to narrow down to one, but Mely Moss's defeat by Papillon, the pair well clear, in the 2000 National was certainly deflating.
What was the best punting advice you've received?
"Don't worry about the colour of the cat as long as it catches mice." There are so many different ways to solve racing's puzzles. Find the one that suits you best and stick to it.
>>>>>>>>>
Most people believe that a horse's handicap mark is important. So most people therefore believe there is value in rating horses.
Few people believe the same value exists in making speed figures. But, when a handicapper puts a form rating to a race without even looking at the time, he or she is assigning a single-race going allowance and making a speed figure. After all, the distances between horses are merely lags in time. And if you rate the winner 70, you are using time to produce all the other ratings in the same race.
So, when rating horses, everything is time and time is everything.
Now, when this same form handicapper rates all the other races on the card, he or she could make a decent job of it without ever referencing time. However, figures for all races are so much more robust if they are connected to one another: this makes the sample size grow, which reduces the average error.
Speed figures merely provide a framework to link all the times on a card together. If all races were truly run and the going did not change, a rating of 70 in one race should be parallel to a rating of 70 in another, allowing for the distance of the race. The most common technique used to normalise for distance is the standard time: standard times for a course represent in theory the same level of physical effort.
Speed figures is the technique of inferring the relative merit of racehorses from the times they achieve in races. The signal of time needs cleaning up a bit to remove the effect of the shape of the course, the going, pace, weight, the age of a horse and other factors, but this should not come as a surprise to anyone applying science to a real-world problem: try rolling a ball down a plank of wood and timing its descent and you will find that F = ma (Newton's second law) doesn't hold unless you account for friction.
The point is that you can't know all the variables and the ones you do know are actually nonlinear. This is true if you are trying to figure out how good a racehorse is or trying to get a probe to Mars.
Let's say you accept the importance of speed figures. Whether you want to actually calculate figures and turn it into your life's work, I doubt. If you do, there are plenty of good tutorials available online via a decent Google search.
If you want to use figures somebody else has calculated to improve your understanding of racing, please read on. Notice I did not write "to improve your bottom line"; this is because the discipline of speed figures needs no justification in the return of investment. Profit is decidedly up to you.
Having stood in front of the operations room of some of the world's biggest betting syndicates, I can assure the reader that
reader that speed figures are applied with great sophistication to the betting problem every day. Whether you feel this is a good reason to do the same or good not to (you will struggle to emulate the efforts of 25 PhDs running super-charged software, after all) is, again, very much your call.
There are thousands of examples of good horses who signalled the depth of their talent with fast times. Could you have recognised them from other ways? Yes, of course, in many cases. It's harder now than ever to back horses with big figures because those guys have usually got there also. But there are lots of good reasons to study figures without enslaving them and yourself in some infernal, rigid system.
No matter whose figures you follow, you will not find a ready profit in betting the top-rated blind. But have a look at this table derived from the Proform (proformracing.com) database concerning the latest speed figure earned by last-time-out winners in British handicaps since 2016:
This is very strong evidence that the time recorded by a horse in its most recent start is important. Remembering that all the data comes from horses who won their last race, the ranking of that horse based on its speed figures in today's race (first column) is very strongly correlated with its winning chance, taking nothing else into account. Horses who are top-rated today have an Impact Value (IV) of 2.14. This means they win again at a rate 2.14 times random chance (note that IV is better than Strike Rate (SR) because the rows of this table are derived from races with different-sized fields, and horses ranked tenth or worse all ran in races with at least ten runners, lowering their SR artificially).
The final column 'A/E' stands for 'Actual over Expected' and is a robust measure of profitability. An A/E of 1.01, for example, means that the sample won 1.01 times more often than expected by the exchange prices, themselves an unbiased estimator of win probability.
Now take into account that the A/E of the entire group of last-time-out winners here is 0.99. So the first two rows of the tables tell us that horses coming off fast-time wins do indeed win a lot more often than those coming off slow wins, but the market properly evaluates the difference between groups. We can assume this last point is true (at least in this particular cohort) because there is no correlation between A/E and Rank today.
You can choose any other manipulation of a horse's previous figures and find the same approximate truth. Speed figures are powerful indicators of performance in today's race, but their impact is recognised in the market. In other words, those PhDs I talked about have the same or better figures in their model.
From description to prediction
But there is an important consideration when using any particular statistic as a guide to making a bet: be careful not to 'overfit'. Overfitting is the pitfall of assuming that the behaviour of a statistic in a particular sample of data represents the behaviour of the same statistic in general, particularly in cases where the statistic turned out to have been unusually indicative of some interesting effect, like winning.
All the horses who made up the sample of data above, for example, had different secondary and tertiary characteristics which, if incorporated into the simple model specified, might have changed what we expected to happen by a large degree.
For instance, what if you took the first row of data in the first table – these are last-time-out winners top-rated in today's race – and parse them into three buckets according to their run-style last time. Note here that it is important never to use run-style in today's race because you don't know that at the time you make a bet (well, unless you are an insider of course).
Leaving aside the concern of statistical significance for the sake of bringing everyone along for the ride here, look at this table and now you have learned something about the very nature of competition in horse racing: when a horse wins in a fast time, it matters not just that it ran fast but how it ran fast.
Most turf races are not run efficiently because the early pace is too slow. So the races which yield the fastest times tend to be those that are closest to the ideal. The pace buckets here were determined not by me but automatically by the Proform database using comments in running. Horses who made all last time ('L' for 'led') did better in this sample than horses who won after merely racing prominently ('P') and better again than horses who won after being held up or outpaced ('H').
Why? Because horses who recorded a fast time when leading must have run close to at least a good, testing pace throughout the race; they likely did not get an easy lead. Horses who were behind early here probably benefited from being given a lead by rivals who were going too fast.
It turns out that the sample of 765 last-time-out winners who made all should have won 195 times, according to exchange odds, but actually won ten per cent more than this, 215 times. This is the A/E of 1.10 – shown in the first row. Again, be careful not to believe this postulates an enduring truth. Rather, it could just be an artefact of the particular sample.
The point is that, in the last few paragraphs, we have stopped to interrogate our beliefs about racing using the evidence presented by times. There are countless other studies you can perform on figures with a database like Proform or Raceform Interactive.
Some people don't need anything more than their intuition to understand racing. Or so they say. Better to subject your beliefs to evidence, says science.
The golden rules of speed figures
There is really only one golden rule of using speed figures: use them for enlightenment and not slavish adherence. This is seven rules less than Fight Club, and you are allowed to talk about speed figures too.
Here are ten handy hints, let's call them, assuming the scale of speed figures you use is parallel to that of BHA handicapping.
1. When making a bet because of a figure, remember to tell yourself out loud the market makers know this figure too. Are you still content to make the bet with your cards uppermost?
2. Prefer big figures coming from lightly raced horses. It is likely that the information content of speed figures is greatest when the merit of the horse has the most potential variance.
3. Have more confidence in a horse coming off a fast time but do NOT use this as an endpoint to evaluate horses against one another.
The winning post and Longines clock at Royal Ascot
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
4. A corollary of 3: do NOT seek to lay horses coming off slow races who are catching betting support because these races (which your figures have identified usefully) have the greatest capacity to produce 'hidden efforts', which are instances when a horse has done well to overcome the run of the race.
5. Compare the speed figures of a horse to its official handicap mark. Depending on the set of figures you are using, a meaningful positive difference should encourage you to consider this horse for a bet. For technical reasons, higher-weighted horses with surplus speed figures above their handicap mark win more often than lower-weighted horses.
6. Strongly consider horses returning to the course and distance of a previous big figure. Unlike form figures, speed figures constitute proof that a horse with a big figure owns the physical capabilities to run fast over this particular terrain, be it stiff, galloping, undulating or sharp. That's a built-in plus.
7. They say that making excuses for horses is costly – not when they have big figures in the past, perhaps. Look to be artful and enthusiastic when making excuses for horses you know can run bigger figures than most horses with their handicap marks. You have to find value somehow.
8. When you encounter a horse who has run a big figure, see if you can persuade yourself that he or she will never do it again. This is a decent way of interrogating the question: were conditions, or the run of the race, highly influential in creating a platform for this horse? If not, this horse is more likely to be a legitimate bet in a favourable spot.
9. Look at the distances between runners in races which yield big figures. Because you are trying to capture outliers, it is more likely that horses will finish well spread out behind legitimate fast-time athletes. Unless the race is highly competitive, a bunched finish with a big figure can suggest some kind of problem with the data. Was the distance of the race correct? Did the weather change? Was there only one truly run race on the card?
10. The most important rule: read and learn everything you can about sectional times. The pace of races is fundamental in understanding the true meaning of the figures which they produce. Speed figures without sectionals is like snooker without the pundit's pundit, Neal Foulds: you just won't understand what is going on as well.
Putting the theory into practice – Dubai World Cup night
Making sense of the racing at Meydan with times and sectionals can be a rewarding exercise; it's a perfect environment to begin to understand the differences between turf and dirt, with a database of open course sectionals available via Trakus and racing surfaces which do vary a bit but are rarely at the extremes.
What makes it special for me is the television broadcasts provided for the world feed featuring Rishi Persad, Angus McNae and Tom Stanley. This is racing broadcasting as I love to watch it at home; while there are plenty of enthusiastic non-technical racing broadcasters on TV, and more ex-jockeys than ever, a TV platform prepared to draw interest from the quality of the performances as described by times, sectionals and form stands out a mile in 2020.
With World Cup night at Meydan almost here, if racing is given the go-ahead, here are five horses who have been noted on the world feed broadcasts from Meydan and could feature prominently next Saturday.
Barney Roy (Dubai Turf)
Brilliantly revitalised by Charlie Appleby, Barney Roy faces a tough rival in Almond Eye in the 1m1f Group 1, but his time of 1:46.09 (track only a little faster than normal) in the Group 1 Jebel Hatta last time stands out a mile. He ran 33.19 for the last three furlongs – a very fast finish which describes his acceleration perfectly. Will he get an ideal set-up?
Barney Roy wins the Group 1 Jebel Hatta with a very fast last three furlongs
Francois Nel/Getty Images
Wildman Jack (Al Quoz Sprint)
US turf sprinters don't have a brilliant reputation, but this horse is ridiculously fast: he stopped the clock at 1:07.61 for the six furlongs of the Group 3 Nad Al Sheba Sprint on his Dubai debut. I am looking forward to discussion of the repeatability of this freakish effort. Was he on a faster strip? What about him bouncing second time off the plane?
Wafy (Godolphin Mile/Golden Shaheen)
When the son of the magnificent all-surface sire Dubawi came from miles off to win the Group 3 Mahab Al Shimaal, it looked a pace-aided fluke to me. But, when the time and sectionals were flagged up – his last quarter of 23.31 on dirt is relatively fast – I changed my mind. I just wonder whether this run style is going to work against better horses in the Golden Shaheen.
What if his superb trainer Satish Seemar switches him to the longer Godolphin Mile? It's a great point that his positive splits (24.54 – 24.04 – 23.31) fit a mile better than a sprint, and he's the product of two Classic winners.
Ghaiyyath (Sheema Classic)
One of the most naturally talented horses on the planet also seems one of the least reliable. Which Ghaiyyath will we get? Can William Buick rate the runaway? The son of Dubawi (who else?) made running 2:00 for a mile and a quarter look ridiculously easy in the Group 3 Dubai Millennium. That is so apt because there is plenty of the great horse about this fellow. Can he pair that effort? This is his home field.
Matterhorn (Dubai World Cup)
Many points of interest were raised by Matterhorn's romp in the Group 1 Al Maktoum Challenge: first, the viewer knew his time of 2:04.44 was really good because the dirt track was slower than normal and longer-distance races on dirt are affected more than sprints in these circumstances. Second, he went a little too fast for his own good. He has a massive engine, but can he dominate better rivals?
James Willoughby Q&A
What was your first bet?
As a callow youth sent to confirmation class by religious parents, I actually laid Pascal's Wager (betting on the existence of God has asymmetric costs, if you are wrong) to our vicar. I have yet to suffer divine retribution, but I fear it could be any day now...
What was your biggest win?
I backed Summoner to win the 2001 Queen Elizabeth II Stakes at Ascot (some of it at 100-1) and won about £5,000 all in. It won at 33-1. The result taught me to have much more confidence in my opinion in future, but the price taught me that nobody was reading my feature articles. I spent the cash on landscape gardening, which makes the whole thing just a bad memory.
What was your most painful loser?
Without a shadow of doubt, Visinari in last year's July Stakes. I did not have a penny on, but the result was very costly for reasons some readers will know.
What was the best punting advice you have ever received?
Always keep records, starting with your next tremendous run.
________________________________________
>>>>>>>
In-running punter Matt Williams reveals his rules for success
1 of 1
5:49PM, MAR 18 2020
When reality hit that betting exchanges were here to stay, the impact was nuclear for some of the more traditional branches of the gambling industry.
I remember Peter Savill back in 2003, when he was chairman of the BHB, calling on the government to set up an independent commission of inquiry into betting exchanges.
But the ship had already sailed by then, and it was around that time the industry should have been embracing the revolution and looking for a piece of Betfair and **** rather than looking down its nose at the new phenomenon. Racing's hierarchy should have bought an exchange, not fought against them.
The scope to make money out of betting in the early days of exchanges was plentiful. The racing and betting landscape was in a much healthier state compared to now.
Broadly speaking, it's harder to make the game pay nowadays. At the start of it all, habitual losers became winners, lads that couldn’t make it pay suddenly hit on a winning method. That hasn't remained the case.
Liquidity
Liquidity, or lack of it, might be the biggest reason some of us think the game is tougher now than ever before.
I'm convinced the relationship between pre-race markets and in-running markets is hugely important. The swollen pre-race levels of liquidity for a race at the Cheltenham Festival lends a generous hand to the in-running markets. Common sense tells you there will be a hefty drop-off at Plumpton on a Monday afternoon, but some of the examples you see are ridiculous.
If it was my job to maintain and improve liquidity in the markets, I'd want to see the pre-race markets in better shape. People complain about the liquidity in ante-post or night-before-racing markets. I don't have a problem with that – if you are a big layer at fancy odds across the board the night before, you'll last a millisecond.
Ten minutes beforehand, the 7.15 at Dundalk on a Friday night can have pitiful levels of money in the market, so it's no surprise to me when punters try to have fifty quid on a 10 shot in running only to have £28 matched at 10, the other £22 at prices you wish you hadn't taken, owing to cramped override back odds on your Gruss Betting Assistant (downloadable software). I fall for it all too often.
Dundalk on a Friday night can have pitiful levels of money in the markets
Patrick McCann (racingpost.com/photos)
A handy tip is to be more in control of the money you're having on rather than mindlessly bashing away at a box, taking whatever you can at whatever price is underneath your initial trade. By varying the bet stake, I'm finding the swings are less dramatic and most of the big wins – in running – are for relatively small money being matched at huge prices.
I've been fortunate to hit 1000 nudging 80 times during my time on Betfair. It's a great feeling and offers opportunities for modest bettors to make serious headway. I've never once intentionally looked for 1000 in a market, I just keep my head down and bet the horses I think have a chance.
A lot of in-running players rarely look away from what is happening at the front end of a race, just plough into front-runners and work away from there. I rarely hit the maximum when something freakish happens in a race – I'm too old and too slow. I tend to do better when I know the one who's 20 lengths clear is not going to see out the trip.
These opportunities are there for everyone to take advantage of and even being seven seconds behind live isn't a total bar to success. I once hit Iveagh Gardens at 1000 for around £16,000 despite watching on ATR. I was a bit fortunate having waded into runner-up Found at skinny odds and was just looking for a cover bet.
You can't say the markets are robust across the board on exchanges and it's fair to ask why should they be? Dundalk, Friday night, some people have social lives, even if I don't. But to watch and bet in a pre-race and in-running market that has only around £150,000 traded in total (so £75,000 matched) is worrying, and this scenario is realistic.
Recently, Betfair have started showing the exchange some love again after a lengthy fling with the Sportsbook. I'm happy about that as Sportsbook betting is boring compared to a high-functioning exchange, but I wish the current advertising campaign fronted by Clive Owen was better.
For starters, he's not explaining the 'keep bets' facility on Betfair well enough. The cash-out option is a bookies' dream, whereas I believe the 'keep bets' provision is a much better version of 'cash out'. Say you put £10 on a 20-1 shot, you can leave a lay for when the market goes in-play, at 3 or whatever tickles your fancy. So if you stand to win £200, your £10 stake in 'keep bets' trades below the 3 mark and you will have earned your stake money back, potentially more if you wanted the lay at 3 for £20, while still hoping for the big payout if the selection wins.
You don't feel deflated using 'keep bets' and it delivers a level of control in the markets you play. I should use it more myself.
Greater use of 'keep bets' will help liquidity, but surely the exchanges can come up with some more creative ways of putting the money into markets. The lack of education around betting on the exchanges has baffled me for well over a decade. Trust me, I'm average Joe when it comes to sussing most things out and, if I 'get' the exchanges, anyone can.
If you've got plenty and fancy getting involved in the backing and laying game (fun for them, life for the rest of us), sign up to an exchange and see £120 in box one, £145 in box two and so on, that's got to be a massive turn-off. I understand most punters are happy with their fivers and tenners, but the levels of liquidity we are seeing at the moment is delivering the message that perhaps the model isn't ticking along as well as the market share prices would have you believe.
The premium charge is a bar to success for some and an immovable mountain for others. When you hit £250,000 profit, you're in for 40 per cent (some pay 60 per cent) every week. I used to have to pay this every Wednesday. If you have a great week and win X, be sure not to have a bad Monday and Tuesday, because Betfair will want their slice regardless come Wednesday afternoon. It became a drag for me, mentally, as I'm not your usual consistent winner.
However, I'm now on a percentage for every winner backed, a deal that alleviates the stress of Dreadsday. Even though in reality I’m still operating around the 40 per cent mark, I'm here to tell you to talk to Betfair and agree a structure that works for you. They do customise and have the clout to help. If I had to go back to my old situation, I'd probably doff my cap and walk away.
Money management
In the 18 years I have been betting on the exchanges, I have endured one losing year. I took my eye off the ball, living like an idiot and thinking I had the game sussed – it bit me on the backside.
I remember that year more vividly than any of the winning years, because the responsibilities I had were enormous. I let my partner and two kids (four now) down, and we even moved house as a result. The fact I knew we'd be fine in time cut no mustard with those closest to me who had no understanding of the game.
I’d been doing very well at that point, but depending on your personality, complacency can set in, and quickly.
When you find a way of winning, the biggest pointer to success, in my opinion, is bank management. I'm a spender, always have been and always will be, but being a spender shouldn't translate to being an idiot, and the way I used to look after my tank was sometimes destructive to what I was trying to do on a daily basis. It's no coincidence I win so much more betting from a position of strength, when a healthy betting balance allows me to make better decisions.
If I'm in work, I bet on every race every day. My formula is to back my form pick(s) pre-race with a view to backing up my judgement in running, or ultimately bailing on all that has gone before and trying to make the most of a bad situation. My position can worsen or improve dramatically. If I'm playing with 'scared' money and in the midst of a bad run, while spending heavily away from the day job, everything seems harder and you find yourself waiting for a spot to get going again. I'm a glass-half-full man, but if you're a half-empty man a bad run could be the end of you, betting-wise.
I've seen some talented in-running operators not fulfil their potential, because they keep going skint and eventually retire back to the jobs they used to do, or on to something else away from betting. It's tough to watch when you know the ability is there but the discipline isn't.
Having an edge
Lots of punters have found different ways to win on the exchanges, but the deepest source of consistent winners is to be found in the in-running markets, mostly on the horses.
My 'edge' is that I believe myself to be at the top of the tree when it comes to race-reading – not that many other professional exchange players would know how to read a race at all, which just shows there are more ways than one to come out on top.
In fact, when I went into a betting-exchange shop for the first time ten years ago, it struck me how many of the lads couldn't care less about the sport of racing or its participants. The ones who stood the test of time could spot a race-winning move and profit out of their astute decision-making skills. But race-readers? No. A hefty percentage would watch a race like you would play a computer game, when speed and aggression was their edge. Some of them are still going strong today, using those sets of skills, but it can't be nearly as much fun if you're not into the sport.
You shouldn't be sat at home playing off pictures seven seconds behind live expecting to consistently win in running; you need to be a lot closer to 'live'. The best place to be is at the track in one of the boxes racecourses provide for in-running punters to do their thing. You have 'twitchers' trackside, watching the race unfold while betting on tablets, and some make a very good living at it. Facetimers are at the track, sending pics for others to bet on, not live and behind other sources but workable nonetheless. Drones are in the air and punters use cherry pickers to get the best angles.
The vast majority of in-running punters would like a level playing field, which would encourage others to get involved and boost liquidity in the markets.
Martin Hughes, from the horserace bettors' forum, has been working hard to get some clarity on the issues surrounding picture speed, enjoying some notable success of late. RTV have run some trials which would indicate a time delay plenty of home players would be happy to trust – it appears there is a willingness from RTV to provide a service around just four-tenths of a second behind. The tracks aligned to Sky Sports Racing, on the other hand, appear to have taken a significant backward step, which would alienate in-running players – it's no longer playable the way it is at present.
I haven't even discussed the virulent use of 'bots' on the exchanges, a popular practice used by a growing number by all accounts, to earn a crust. I don't know enough about them or how best to implement their use in various markets. Each to their own, I say, but if someone is earning a living doing it then fair play. It all goes into the mix to bake the cake.
Ten handy hints to crack the exchanges
1. Download Gruss Betting Assistant, the software developed by Gary Russell. It is outrageous value.
2. Focus more on races with greater liquidity in the market.
3. Vary your stake to stay in control of the money you're getting on.
4. Look to back horses at big prices when you know the horse miles in front won't get home.
5. Make use of the 'keep bets' facility.
6. Talk to Betfair about your own payment structure.
7. Bet from a position of financial strength, ie with what you can afford.
8. Maintain financial discipline.
9. At the same time, don't be afraid of chasing losses – as long as it's in a responsible, calculated way. How else will you right the ship?
10. Follow the action as close to 'live' as possible, preferably from a racecourse box.
________________________________________
Matt Williams Q&A
What was your first bet?
It would have been in the Grand National, but I don't know what it was. The first one I remember that mattered was Grand Lodge getting nutted in the 2,000 Guineas.
What was your biggest win?
I've had several around the £70,000 mark, because my standard click per bet was £75 at the time and I hit Folie A Deux at 1000 at Warwick one day. It stands out because my son was born days earlier, I was already well in front on the day and AP was riding him, which made the 1000 even more remarkable. He was so good on him it made the Wichita Lineman ride look like a walkover, and I took an early bath.
Folie A Deux (centre) and AP McCoy on their way to victory at Warwick, having hit 1000 in running
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
What was your most painful loser?
I'm a big fan of chasing your losses, but I had two days of it when I was in the office at the Racing Post and I can recall being over £60,000 out of pocket after two days of misery, holding on to the escalator rail after day two, light-headed, on the way to the Jubilee line. I regained my equilibrium boarding my train at Paddington!
What's the best punting advice you've received?
Former Racing Post tipster Nick Fox (RIP Foxy) showed me the workings of Betfair in the office one day and suggested I should give it a whirl. I’ve got a lot of reasons to thank him for that, but not all of them I can vouch for as a result of my missus being world champion spender since 2003.
Well, everyone has their own individual motivations. Being able to control when and where you work, not being answerable to anyone else, having the opportunity to make more money than a regular nine-to-five job could provide – all seem perfectly valid reasons for taking the plunge.
For me, from an early age, puzzle-solving was always the most appealing aspect of following horseracing, the working-out at least as satisfying as collecting the cash from a winning bet. And after many years of betting reasonably successfully alongside a full-time job, I simply wanted to see if I could take things to a different level. In theory at least, having an extra 40 hours a week to hone my analytical skills and explore new approaches would enable me to do just that.
Long before I was legally allowed to bet, I'd become hooked on the ritual of Saturday afternoons in front of the TV in the company of Bachelor's Hall, Julio Mariner, Sharpo and Red Rum. And before long, simply watching those animals run wasn't enough.
I wanted to know why Night Nurse would beat Monksfield on one occasion but not another, why under certain circumstances Sea Pigeon might beat them both, and why Birds Nest seemed capable of finishing in front of each of those rivals in some races but never all of them at the same time.
In the first few years of trying to solve the riddles, my selection methods changed radically. Early attempts at devising winning "systems" predictably proved naive and short-lived, but stumbling across one of Peter Jones's Trainers Record books in the mid-1980s proved revelatory.
Suddenly it became possible to study, and even to quantify, the competence of the people responsible for the fitness and education of the horses I was following every day. Those books are long gone, but statistics breaking down trainers' achievements by course, type of race, time of year and so on have never been more comprehensive or readily available. Trying to understand the habits, talents and shortcomings of the different members of the training profession remains pivotal to my punting methodology.
The next game-changer for me was the introduction of televised coverage of all races, available first in betting shops, later via the specialist racing channels. Instead of having to rely on others' reports of horses meeting trouble in running, being set too much to do or forcing too strong a gallop, the visual evidence was now available at home. All you needed was a VCR and plenty of free time.
Gradually, imperceptibly, by watching hundreds of races, I became better equipped to identify the factors that would prove essential in unearthing future bets. It seems glaringly obvious now, but it was something of a breakthrough to realise that, while the result of a race was in the public domain, the complex series of events involved in shaping it were not.
Decades later, trying to understand the mechanics of each race remains the holy grail. Which horses were seen to maximum effect and might be opposable next time? Which ones were at a disadvantage by the way the race developed? Identifying an unexpected draw bias, or a golden strip of ground near a rail, or the impact of a strong headwind, is more important in the long term than finding individual winners.
Each day brings a different set of puzzles, and trying to solve all of them is impossible if you want any kind of life outside the betting bubble. To state the obvious, specialisation is key. Over time, after years of trial and error, it dawned on me that my chief strength was in spotting the potential of horses early in their career, so bumpers, novice hurdles and two-year-old races now form the mainstay of my punting. It helps that I enjoy poring over horses' pedigrees, something some punters overlook.
I have friends who crunch numbers and analyse times and sections of races to gain a sophisticated understanding of the sport, others who put a red circle around every fixture at Southwell because their specialist knowledge of Fibresand form gives them an edge. Some people I know won't have a bet unless they're present at the track to view the horses in the paddock, their angle coming from seeing things the majority of us miss. All these approaches are valid, if they work, though personally I don't own a stopwatch, rarely bet at Southwell and usually glean no more from paddock inspection than that most of the horses in it are brown and have four legs.
The lion's share of my bets spring from notes made watching previous races. So a horse I've noticed jumping right and losing ground on a left-handed track becomes a potential wager when he runs on a right-handed course. A horse whose poor efforts coincided with his trainer enduring a prolonged slump in form becomes worthy of consideration when the stable is back on the up.
These observations used to be recorded long-hand, which meant that making and consulting notes was laborious, but nowadays I use one of the many websites which allow you to store your own comments digitally and call them up at the click of a mouse.
How to add notes on horse profiles on the Racing Post website
On the other hand, I'm generally not a fan of using a "tracker" loaded with horses to follow. Too often one feels obliged to back the horse in question regardless of the conditions or opposition. Approaching each race with an open mind is a crucial part of logical form study, and I find that hard to do if I already feel committed to one of its contestants.
On a related note, in order to avoid any sort of prejudice, I'd rather not know the odds available until I've completed a thorough study of each race. I rarely compile a full tissue of prices, but usually have a rough idea of the odds at which I'm prepared to back the horses I'm interested in.
I've also learned, from my own mistakes, not to be tempted to cut corners with race-reading. If I'm looking back at a two-mile race, I'll watch it all rather than just the closing stages. If a horse finishes weakly, for example, it could be the result of expending too much energy by pulling hard early on. Watch only the second half of the race and you could be missing an important piece of the jigsaw.
The thorny topic of "getting on" is perhaps the most contentious aspect of betting in the current era, and all punters, whether full-time, semi-serious or purely recreational, will have their own individual experiences.
From my point of view, the golden age was around the turn of the century: I was able to bet with half a dozen different bookmakers, and at that time you could win reasonable amounts before accounts were closed or severely restricted.
It was also easier to benefit from ricks because bookmakers did not put up prices on run-of-the-mill racing the night before. The markets went up on the morning of the race, and it was relatively straightforward for clued-up punters to identify overpriced horses and back them. Even if you'd already been shown the door by certain bookmakers, a betting exchange such as Betfair was a viable alternative.
Fast-forward 20 years and away from the big meetings there are often now only tiny amounts available to back or lay on the betting exchanges until minutes before the race begins. Recreational punters, who once bolstered the liquidity on Betfair, have migrated back to traditional bookmakers, understandably attracted by concessions such as Best Odds Guaranteed. Bookmakers use overnight markets as a means of getting their cards marked, chopping the odds of many of the interesting horses while laying just fivers or tenners.
Betfair Exchange: key for many pro punters
As a result there's no doubt I work harder to win less these days. With virtually no access to bookmakers' prices, I do almost all my betting on the exchanges close to the off, and the nearer to a race's off time you bet the lower your expectations will be in terms of return on investment.
But it's not all doom and gloom. Being forced to play your cards late can have its upsides. For example, spot a normally relaxed horse in a muck sweat, or another bolting to post? If you're betting solely in the few minutes before the race starts, there's still time to use this information to your advantage.
The effort of getting a bet on preoccupies most serious punters more than any other subject these days, but for those contemplating a switch to professional gambling the psychological element needs considering too.
The most knowledgeable racing experts do not necessarily make the best gamblers. When I went full-time I found that the lack of a financial safety net focused my mind, but for others there will be a big difference mentally between supplementing your wage with profitable punting and having no other way of paying the bills. Temperament is key.
Losing runs still hurt, but decades of punting leave you with a thick skin. Unless you're consistently backing at very short prices, you become used to being wrong, a lot, and that's fine. If you're regularly backing 20-1 shots and they lose 90 per cent of the time you're still making a very good profit.
That's not to say, however, the spectre of losing one's touch doesn't lurk in the background for many punters. Learning neither to get overly high when times are good nor despondent when the winners dry up helps maintain the equilibrium.
In my early days of betting full-time, the peaks and troughs felt more pronounced. Most of my biggest wins came during the few years from 2005 onwards, but sobering losing days were more acute in that period. In the last few years I've become more comfortable accumulating singles than trying to hit boundaries.
Whatever your modus operandi, it goes without saying that keeping honest records of profit and loss is essential. If you're a selective punter, having only a handful of bets a week, it's straightforward to log every wager with a breakdown of race type, course, price, etc. If, like me, you have a more scattergun approach with plenty of bets every day, a more basic end-of-day profit/loss record will suffice.
The future of horseracing, and of betting in general, is perhaps less certain today than at any point during my career. Hundreds of betting shops have closed recently and the threat of increased government regulation hangs over the industry. In ten or 20 years' time the landscape could be unrecognisable.
But for now the challenge remains the same for me as it was in the days of Sharpo and Red Rum. The fun to be had from trying to solve racing's endlessly fascinating puzzles means that punting still doesn't feel like a job. Winning isn't easy, but with a mixture of creativity, discipline and hard work it's still perfectly possible to combine business with pleasure every day.
Trainer trends can provide key pointers
Taking particular notice of the way trainers operate in certain types of races can throw up bet-compelling trends.
It struck me a few years ago that, while Dan Skelton's record in bumpers was reasonable overall, his runners seemed to improve more than the norm for the experience of having a race or two under their belt. Sure enough, a Raceform Interactive search confirmed that horses persevered with by Skelton in bumpers for a third or fourth outing hit the target with a strike rate nearly three times that of the yard's debutants.
Bumper stats: eyecatching figures for Ruth Jefferson and Dan Skelton
Similarly, look at how much Ruth Jefferson's strike-rate jumps when she runs one in a bumper for a second time as opposed to first time out.
Small but useful pieces of information to help in the quest for winners.
Q&A
What was your first bet?
Nereo, Grand National, 1974. Ridden by the 54-year-old Duke of Alburquerque in a plaster cast after he'd broken his collarbone in a fall the previous week and finished a distant eighth. An early lesson that jockeyship can be crucial.
What was your biggest win?
5p each-way the following year on L'Escargot, who denied hot favourite Red Rum a hat-trick of Grand Nationals. In hindsight the bet that got me hooked.
What was your most painful loser?
Almost impossible to narrow down to one, but Mely Moss's defeat by Papillon, the pair well clear, in the 2000 National was certainly deflating.
What was the best punting advice you've received?
"Don't worry about the colour of the cat as long as it catches mice." There are so many different ways to solve racing's puzzles. Find the one that suits you best and stick to it.
>>>>>>>>>
Most people believe that a horse's handicap mark is important. So most people therefore believe there is value in rating horses.
Few people believe the same value exists in making speed figures. But, when a handicapper puts a form rating to a race without even looking at the time, he or she is assigning a single-race going allowance and making a speed figure. After all, the distances between horses are merely lags in time. And if you rate the winner 70, you are using time to produce all the other ratings in the same race.
So, when rating horses, everything is time and time is everything.
Now, when this same form handicapper rates all the other races on the card, he or she could make a decent job of it without ever referencing time. However, figures for all races are so much more robust if they are connected to one another: this makes the sample size grow, which reduces the average error.
Speed figures merely provide a framework to link all the times on a card together. If all races were truly run and the going did not change, a rating of 70 in one race should be parallel to a rating of 70 in another, allowing for the distance of the race. The most common technique used to normalise for distance is the standard time: standard times for a course represent in theory the same level of physical effort.
Speed figures is the technique of inferring the relative merit of racehorses from the times they achieve in races. The signal of time needs cleaning up a bit to remove the effect of the shape of the course, the going, pace, weight, the age of a horse and other factors, but this should not come as a surprise to anyone applying science to a real-world problem: try rolling a ball down a plank of wood and timing its descent and you will find that F = ma (Newton's second law) doesn't hold unless you account for friction.
The point is that you can't know all the variables and the ones you do know are actually nonlinear. This is true if you are trying to figure out how good a racehorse is or trying to get a probe to Mars.
Let's say you accept the importance of speed figures. Whether you want to actually calculate figures and turn it into your life's work, I doubt. If you do, there are plenty of good tutorials available online via a decent Google search.
If you want to use figures somebody else has calculated to improve your understanding of racing, please read on. Notice I did not write "to improve your bottom line"; this is because the discipline of speed figures needs no justification in the return of investment. Profit is decidedly up to you.
Having stood in front of the operations room of some of the world's biggest betting syndicates, I can assure the reader that
reader that speed figures are applied with great sophistication to the betting problem every day. Whether you feel this is a good reason to do the same or good not to (you will struggle to emulate the efforts of 25 PhDs running super-charged software, after all) is, again, very much your call.
There are thousands of examples of good horses who signalled the depth of their talent with fast times. Could you have recognised them from other ways? Yes, of course, in many cases. It's harder now than ever to back horses with big figures because those guys have usually got there also. But there are lots of good reasons to study figures without enslaving them and yourself in some infernal, rigid system.
No matter whose figures you follow, you will not find a ready profit in betting the top-rated blind. But have a look at this table derived from the Proform (proformracing.com) database concerning the latest speed figure earned by last-time-out winners in British handicaps since 2016:
This is very strong evidence that the time recorded by a horse in its most recent start is important. Remembering that all the data comes from horses who won their last race, the ranking of that horse based on its speed figures in today's race (first column) is very strongly correlated with its winning chance, taking nothing else into account. Horses who are top-rated today have an Impact Value (IV) of 2.14. This means they win again at a rate 2.14 times random chance (note that IV is better than Strike Rate (SR) because the rows of this table are derived from races with different-sized fields, and horses ranked tenth or worse all ran in races with at least ten runners, lowering their SR artificially).
The final column 'A/E' stands for 'Actual over Expected' and is a robust measure of profitability. An A/E of 1.01, for example, means that the sample won 1.01 times more often than expected by the exchange prices, themselves an unbiased estimator of win probability.
Now take into account that the A/E of the entire group of last-time-out winners here is 0.99. So the first two rows of the tables tell us that horses coming off fast-time wins do indeed win a lot more often than those coming off slow wins, but the market properly evaluates the difference between groups. We can assume this last point is true (at least in this particular cohort) because there is no correlation between A/E and Rank today.
You can choose any other manipulation of a horse's previous figures and find the same approximate truth. Speed figures are powerful indicators of performance in today's race, but their impact is recognised in the market. In other words, those PhDs I talked about have the same or better figures in their model.
From description to prediction
But there is an important consideration when using any particular statistic as a guide to making a bet: be careful not to 'overfit'. Overfitting is the pitfall of assuming that the behaviour of a statistic in a particular sample of data represents the behaviour of the same statistic in general, particularly in cases where the statistic turned out to have been unusually indicative of some interesting effect, like winning.
All the horses who made up the sample of data above, for example, had different secondary and tertiary characteristics which, if incorporated into the simple model specified, might have changed what we expected to happen by a large degree.
For instance, what if you took the first row of data in the first table – these are last-time-out winners top-rated in today's race – and parse them into three buckets according to their run-style last time. Note here that it is important never to use run-style in today's race because you don't know that at the time you make a bet (well, unless you are an insider of course).
Leaving aside the concern of statistical significance for the sake of bringing everyone along for the ride here, look at this table and now you have learned something about the very nature of competition in horse racing: when a horse wins in a fast time, it matters not just that it ran fast but how it ran fast.
Most turf races are not run efficiently because the early pace is too slow. So the races which yield the fastest times tend to be those that are closest to the ideal. The pace buckets here were determined not by me but automatically by the Proform database using comments in running. Horses who made all last time ('L' for 'led') did better in this sample than horses who won after merely racing prominently ('P') and better again than horses who won after being held up or outpaced ('H').
Why? Because horses who recorded a fast time when leading must have run close to at least a good, testing pace throughout the race; they likely did not get an easy lead. Horses who were behind early here probably benefited from being given a lead by rivals who were going too fast.
It turns out that the sample of 765 last-time-out winners who made all should have won 195 times, according to exchange odds, but actually won ten per cent more than this, 215 times. This is the A/E of 1.10 – shown in the first row. Again, be careful not to believe this postulates an enduring truth. Rather, it could just be an artefact of the particular sample.
The point is that, in the last few paragraphs, we have stopped to interrogate our beliefs about racing using the evidence presented by times. There are countless other studies you can perform on figures with a database like Proform or Raceform Interactive.
Some people don't need anything more than their intuition to understand racing. Or so they say. Better to subject your beliefs to evidence, says science.
The golden rules of speed figures
There is really only one golden rule of using speed figures: use them for enlightenment and not slavish adherence. This is seven rules less than Fight Club, and you are allowed to talk about speed figures too.
Here are ten handy hints, let's call them, assuming the scale of speed figures you use is parallel to that of BHA handicapping.
1. When making a bet because of a figure, remember to tell yourself out loud the market makers know this figure too. Are you still content to make the bet with your cards uppermost?
2. Prefer big figures coming from lightly raced horses. It is likely that the information content of speed figures is greatest when the merit of the horse has the most potential variance.
3. Have more confidence in a horse coming off a fast time but do NOT use this as an endpoint to evaluate horses against one another.
The winning post and Longines clock at Royal Ascot
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
4. A corollary of 3: do NOT seek to lay horses coming off slow races who are catching betting support because these races (which your figures have identified usefully) have the greatest capacity to produce 'hidden efforts', which are instances when a horse has done well to overcome the run of the race.
5. Compare the speed figures of a horse to its official handicap mark. Depending on the set of figures you are using, a meaningful positive difference should encourage you to consider this horse for a bet. For technical reasons, higher-weighted horses with surplus speed figures above their handicap mark win more often than lower-weighted horses.
6. Strongly consider horses returning to the course and distance of a previous big figure. Unlike form figures, speed figures constitute proof that a horse with a big figure owns the physical capabilities to run fast over this particular terrain, be it stiff, galloping, undulating or sharp. That's a built-in plus.
7. They say that making excuses for horses is costly – not when they have big figures in the past, perhaps. Look to be artful and enthusiastic when making excuses for horses you know can run bigger figures than most horses with their handicap marks. You have to find value somehow.
8. When you encounter a horse who has run a big figure, see if you can persuade yourself that he or she will never do it again. This is a decent way of interrogating the question: were conditions, or the run of the race, highly influential in creating a platform for this horse? If not, this horse is more likely to be a legitimate bet in a favourable spot.
9. Look at the distances between runners in races which yield big figures. Because you are trying to capture outliers, it is more likely that horses will finish well spread out behind legitimate fast-time athletes. Unless the race is highly competitive, a bunched finish with a big figure can suggest some kind of problem with the data. Was the distance of the race correct? Did the weather change? Was there only one truly run race on the card?
10. The most important rule: read and learn everything you can about sectional times. The pace of races is fundamental in understanding the true meaning of the figures which they produce. Speed figures without sectionals is like snooker without the pundit's pundit, Neal Foulds: you just won't understand what is going on as well.
Putting the theory into practice – Dubai World Cup night
Making sense of the racing at Meydan with times and sectionals can be a rewarding exercise; it's a perfect environment to begin to understand the differences between turf and dirt, with a database of open course sectionals available via Trakus and racing surfaces which do vary a bit but are rarely at the extremes.
What makes it special for me is the television broadcasts provided for the world feed featuring Rishi Persad, Angus McNae and Tom Stanley. This is racing broadcasting as I love to watch it at home; while there are plenty of enthusiastic non-technical racing broadcasters on TV, and more ex-jockeys than ever, a TV platform prepared to draw interest from the quality of the performances as described by times, sectionals and form stands out a mile in 2020.
With World Cup night at Meydan almost here, if racing is given the go-ahead, here are five horses who have been noted on the world feed broadcasts from Meydan and could feature prominently next Saturday.
Barney Roy (Dubai Turf)
Brilliantly revitalised by Charlie Appleby, Barney Roy faces a tough rival in Almond Eye in the 1m1f Group 1, but his time of 1:46.09 (track only a little faster than normal) in the Group 1 Jebel Hatta last time stands out a mile. He ran 33.19 for the last three furlongs – a very fast finish which describes his acceleration perfectly. Will he get an ideal set-up?
Barney Roy wins the Group 1 Jebel Hatta with a very fast last three furlongs
Francois Nel/Getty Images
Wildman Jack (Al Quoz Sprint)
US turf sprinters don't have a brilliant reputation, but this horse is ridiculously fast: he stopped the clock at 1:07.61 for the six furlongs of the Group 3 Nad Al Sheba Sprint on his Dubai debut. I am looking forward to discussion of the repeatability of this freakish effort. Was he on a faster strip? What about him bouncing second time off the plane?
Wafy (Godolphin Mile/Golden Shaheen)
When the son of the magnificent all-surface sire Dubawi came from miles off to win the Group 3 Mahab Al Shimaal, it looked a pace-aided fluke to me. But, when the time and sectionals were flagged up – his last quarter of 23.31 on dirt is relatively fast – I changed my mind. I just wonder whether this run style is going to work against better horses in the Golden Shaheen.
What if his superb trainer Satish Seemar switches him to the longer Godolphin Mile? It's a great point that his positive splits (24.54 – 24.04 – 23.31) fit a mile better than a sprint, and he's the product of two Classic winners.
Ghaiyyath (Sheema Classic)
One of the most naturally talented horses on the planet also seems one of the least reliable. Which Ghaiyyath will we get? Can William Buick rate the runaway? The son of Dubawi (who else?) made running 2:00 for a mile and a quarter look ridiculously easy in the Group 3 Dubai Millennium. That is so apt because there is plenty of the great horse about this fellow. Can he pair that effort? This is his home field.
Matterhorn (Dubai World Cup)
Many points of interest were raised by Matterhorn's romp in the Group 1 Al Maktoum Challenge: first, the viewer knew his time of 2:04.44 was really good because the dirt track was slower than normal and longer-distance races on dirt are affected more than sprints in these circumstances. Second, he went a little too fast for his own good. He has a massive engine, but can he dominate better rivals?
James Willoughby Q&A
What was your first bet?
As a callow youth sent to confirmation class by religious parents, I actually laid Pascal's Wager (betting on the existence of God has asymmetric costs, if you are wrong) to our vicar. I have yet to suffer divine retribution, but I fear it could be any day now...
What was your biggest win?
I backed Summoner to win the 2001 Queen Elizabeth II Stakes at Ascot (some of it at 100-1) and won about £5,000 all in. It won at 33-1. The result taught me to have much more confidence in my opinion in future, but the price taught me that nobody was reading my feature articles. I spent the cash on landscape gardening, which makes the whole thing just a bad memory.
What was your most painful loser?
Without a shadow of doubt, Visinari in last year's July Stakes. I did not have a penny on, but the result was very costly for reasons some readers will know.
What was the best punting advice you have ever received?
Always keep records, starting with your next tremendous run.
________________________________________
>>>>>>>
In-running punter Matt Williams reveals his rules for success
1 of 1
5:49PM, MAR 18 2020
When reality hit that betting exchanges were here to stay, the impact was nuclear for some of the more traditional branches of the gambling industry.
I remember Peter Savill back in 2003, when he was chairman of the BHB, calling on the government to set up an independent commission of inquiry into betting exchanges.
But the ship had already sailed by then, and it was around that time the industry should have been embracing the revolution and looking for a piece of Betfair and **** rather than looking down its nose at the new phenomenon. Racing's hierarchy should have bought an exchange, not fought against them.
The scope to make money out of betting in the early days of exchanges was plentiful. The racing and betting landscape was in a much healthier state compared to now.
Broadly speaking, it's harder to make the game pay nowadays. At the start of it all, habitual losers became winners, lads that couldn’t make it pay suddenly hit on a winning method. That hasn't remained the case.
Liquidity
Liquidity, or lack of it, might be the biggest reason some of us think the game is tougher now than ever before.
I'm convinced the relationship between pre-race markets and in-running markets is hugely important. The swollen pre-race levels of liquidity for a race at the Cheltenham Festival lends a generous hand to the in-running markets. Common sense tells you there will be a hefty drop-off at Plumpton on a Monday afternoon, but some of the examples you see are ridiculous.
If it was my job to maintain and improve liquidity in the markets, I'd want to see the pre-race markets in better shape. People complain about the liquidity in ante-post or night-before-racing markets. I don't have a problem with that – if you are a big layer at fancy odds across the board the night before, you'll last a millisecond.
Ten minutes beforehand, the 7.15 at Dundalk on a Friday night can have pitiful levels of money in the market, so it's no surprise to me when punters try to have fifty quid on a 10 shot in running only to have £28 matched at 10, the other £22 at prices you wish you hadn't taken, owing to cramped override back odds on your Gruss Betting Assistant (downloadable software). I fall for it all too often.
Dundalk on a Friday night can have pitiful levels of money in the markets
Patrick McCann (racingpost.com/photos)
A handy tip is to be more in control of the money you're having on rather than mindlessly bashing away at a box, taking whatever you can at whatever price is underneath your initial trade. By varying the bet stake, I'm finding the swings are less dramatic and most of the big wins – in running – are for relatively small money being matched at huge prices.
I've been fortunate to hit 1000 nudging 80 times during my time on Betfair. It's a great feeling and offers opportunities for modest bettors to make serious headway. I've never once intentionally looked for 1000 in a market, I just keep my head down and bet the horses I think have a chance.
A lot of in-running players rarely look away from what is happening at the front end of a race, just plough into front-runners and work away from there. I rarely hit the maximum when something freakish happens in a race – I'm too old and too slow. I tend to do better when I know the one who's 20 lengths clear is not going to see out the trip.
These opportunities are there for everyone to take advantage of and even being seven seconds behind live isn't a total bar to success. I once hit Iveagh Gardens at 1000 for around £16,000 despite watching on ATR. I was a bit fortunate having waded into runner-up Found at skinny odds and was just looking for a cover bet.
You can't say the markets are robust across the board on exchanges and it's fair to ask why should they be? Dundalk, Friday night, some people have social lives, even if I don't. But to watch and bet in a pre-race and in-running market that has only around £150,000 traded in total (so £75,000 matched) is worrying, and this scenario is realistic.
Recently, Betfair have started showing the exchange some love again after a lengthy fling with the Sportsbook. I'm happy about that as Sportsbook betting is boring compared to a high-functioning exchange, but I wish the current advertising campaign fronted by Clive Owen was better.
For starters, he's not explaining the 'keep bets' facility on Betfair well enough. The cash-out option is a bookies' dream, whereas I believe the 'keep bets' provision is a much better version of 'cash out'. Say you put £10 on a 20-1 shot, you can leave a lay for when the market goes in-play, at 3 or whatever tickles your fancy. So if you stand to win £200, your £10 stake in 'keep bets' trades below the 3 mark and you will have earned your stake money back, potentially more if you wanted the lay at 3 for £20, while still hoping for the big payout if the selection wins.
You don't feel deflated using 'keep bets' and it delivers a level of control in the markets you play. I should use it more myself.
Greater use of 'keep bets' will help liquidity, but surely the exchanges can come up with some more creative ways of putting the money into markets. The lack of education around betting on the exchanges has baffled me for well over a decade. Trust me, I'm average Joe when it comes to sussing most things out and, if I 'get' the exchanges, anyone can.
If you've got plenty and fancy getting involved in the backing and laying game (fun for them, life for the rest of us), sign up to an exchange and see £120 in box one, £145 in box two and so on, that's got to be a massive turn-off. I understand most punters are happy with their fivers and tenners, but the levels of liquidity we are seeing at the moment is delivering the message that perhaps the model isn't ticking along as well as the market share prices would have you believe.
The premium charge is a bar to success for some and an immovable mountain for others. When you hit £250,000 profit, you're in for 40 per cent (some pay 60 per cent) every week. I used to have to pay this every Wednesday. If you have a great week and win X, be sure not to have a bad Monday and Tuesday, because Betfair will want their slice regardless come Wednesday afternoon. It became a drag for me, mentally, as I'm not your usual consistent winner.
However, I'm now on a percentage for every winner backed, a deal that alleviates the stress of Dreadsday. Even though in reality I’m still operating around the 40 per cent mark, I'm here to tell you to talk to Betfair and agree a structure that works for you. They do customise and have the clout to help. If I had to go back to my old situation, I'd probably doff my cap and walk away.
Money management
In the 18 years I have been betting on the exchanges, I have endured one losing year. I took my eye off the ball, living like an idiot and thinking I had the game sussed – it bit me on the backside.
I remember that year more vividly than any of the winning years, because the responsibilities I had were enormous. I let my partner and two kids (four now) down, and we even moved house as a result. The fact I knew we'd be fine in time cut no mustard with those closest to me who had no understanding of the game.
I’d been doing very well at that point, but depending on your personality, complacency can set in, and quickly.
When you find a way of winning, the biggest pointer to success, in my opinion, is bank management. I'm a spender, always have been and always will be, but being a spender shouldn't translate to being an idiot, and the way I used to look after my tank was sometimes destructive to what I was trying to do on a daily basis. It's no coincidence I win so much more betting from a position of strength, when a healthy betting balance allows me to make better decisions.
If I'm in work, I bet on every race every day. My formula is to back my form pick(s) pre-race with a view to backing up my judgement in running, or ultimately bailing on all that has gone before and trying to make the most of a bad situation. My position can worsen or improve dramatically. If I'm playing with 'scared' money and in the midst of a bad run, while spending heavily away from the day job, everything seems harder and you find yourself waiting for a spot to get going again. I'm a glass-half-full man, but if you're a half-empty man a bad run could be the end of you, betting-wise.
I've seen some talented in-running operators not fulfil their potential, because they keep going skint and eventually retire back to the jobs they used to do, or on to something else away from betting. It's tough to watch when you know the ability is there but the discipline isn't.
Having an edge
Lots of punters have found different ways to win on the exchanges, but the deepest source of consistent winners is to be found in the in-running markets, mostly on the horses.
My 'edge' is that I believe myself to be at the top of the tree when it comes to race-reading – not that many other professional exchange players would know how to read a race at all, which just shows there are more ways than one to come out on top.
In fact, when I went into a betting-exchange shop for the first time ten years ago, it struck me how many of the lads couldn't care less about the sport of racing or its participants. The ones who stood the test of time could spot a race-winning move and profit out of their astute decision-making skills. But race-readers? No. A hefty percentage would watch a race like you would play a computer game, when speed and aggression was their edge. Some of them are still going strong today, using those sets of skills, but it can't be nearly as much fun if you're not into the sport.
You shouldn't be sat at home playing off pictures seven seconds behind live expecting to consistently win in running; you need to be a lot closer to 'live'. The best place to be is at the track in one of the boxes racecourses provide for in-running punters to do their thing. You have 'twitchers' trackside, watching the race unfold while betting on tablets, and some make a very good living at it. Facetimers are at the track, sending pics for others to bet on, not live and behind other sources but workable nonetheless. Drones are in the air and punters use cherry pickers to get the best angles.
The vast majority of in-running punters would like a level playing field, which would encourage others to get involved and boost liquidity in the markets.
Martin Hughes, from the horserace bettors' forum, has been working hard to get some clarity on the issues surrounding picture speed, enjoying some notable success of late. RTV have run some trials which would indicate a time delay plenty of home players would be happy to trust – it appears there is a willingness from RTV to provide a service around just four-tenths of a second behind. The tracks aligned to Sky Sports Racing, on the other hand, appear to have taken a significant backward step, which would alienate in-running players – it's no longer playable the way it is at present.
I haven't even discussed the virulent use of 'bots' on the exchanges, a popular practice used by a growing number by all accounts, to earn a crust. I don't know enough about them or how best to implement their use in various markets. Each to their own, I say, but if someone is earning a living doing it then fair play. It all goes into the mix to bake the cake.
Ten handy hints to crack the exchanges
1. Download Gruss Betting Assistant, the software developed by Gary Russell. It is outrageous value.
2. Focus more on races with greater liquidity in the market.
3. Vary your stake to stay in control of the money you're getting on.
4. Look to back horses at big prices when you know the horse miles in front won't get home.
5. Make use of the 'keep bets' facility.
6. Talk to Betfair about your own payment structure.
7. Bet from a position of financial strength, ie with what you can afford.
8. Maintain financial discipline.
9. At the same time, don't be afraid of chasing losses – as long as it's in a responsible, calculated way. How else will you right the ship?
10. Follow the action as close to 'live' as possible, preferably from a racecourse box.
________________________________________
Matt Williams Q&A
What was your first bet?
It would have been in the Grand National, but I don't know what it was. The first one I remember that mattered was Grand Lodge getting nutted in the 2,000 Guineas.
What was your biggest win?
I've had several around the £70,000 mark, because my standard click per bet was £75 at the time and I hit Folie A Deux at 1000 at Warwick one day. It stands out because my son was born days earlier, I was already well in front on the day and AP was riding him, which made the 1000 even more remarkable. He was so good on him it made the Wichita Lineman ride look like a walkover, and I took an early bath.
Folie A Deux (centre) and AP McCoy on their way to victory at Warwick, having hit 1000 in running
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
What was your most painful loser?
I'm a big fan of chasing your losses, but I had two days of it when I was in the office at the Racing Post and I can recall being over £60,000 out of pocket after two days of misery, holding on to the escalator rail after day two, light-headed, on the way to the Jubilee line. I regained my equilibrium boarding my train at Paddington!
What's the best punting advice you've received?
Former Racing Post tipster Nick Fox (RIP Foxy) showed me the workings of Betfair in the office one day and suggested I should give it a whirl. I’ve got a lot of reasons to thank him for that, but not all of them I can vouch for as a result of my missus being world champion spender since 2003.
Betting Masterclasses
Global Racecourse Guide
Videos & Postcasts
Best of Members' Club
Racing Explained
Betting Masterclasses BETTING WITH STATISTICS
A winning system: using data to your advantage in the battle with the bookies
Andrew Mount on how statistics can help you to unearth winners
Andrew Mount is an advocate of using statistics to pinpoint winners
Andrew Mount is an advocate of using statistics to pinpoint winners
1 of 1
4:20PM, MAR 19 2020
Like many punters of my generation, I was influenced by journalist Nick Mordin, the Weekender columnist and systems specialist.
His book 'Betting for a Living' steered me towards a more analytical approach to betting, especially 'form breaking' – identifying the ideal race conditions for individual horses.
I wrote a series of books (Trend Horses) for Raceform using this method but, nowadays, this is only one part of my overall approach to betting.
As a tipster and pundit who covers all aspects of racing in Britain in Ireland, be it the Cheltenham Festival or Saturday night action from Wolverhampton, it's difficult to stay on top of the work required by simply studying the form in the old-fashioned way. A Saturday shift on William Hill Radio might require me to have something (vaguely) sensible to say about 60 races across eight different meetings and this is one of the reasons why I now use statistics and systems to help narrow the field and identify potential bets.
Technology has made the work more manageable and there are plenty of good software packages out there. I use two of them on a daily basis – Raceform Interactive, mostly for the excellent speed figures, and Proform, which is invaluable when it comes to researching new systems and keeping track of existing ones.
The Proform 'welcome' screen churns out the qualifiers each day from more than 1,100 systems that I'm currently running, which will number around 30 on a quiet Monday to more than 150 on a busy Saturday.
Some of these systems will be based around a specific race or meeting, such as opposing runners drawn in stall nine or above on all-weather finals day at Lingfield (just four from 129 have scored for a loss of £89 off £1 stakes).
Others will highlight more general factors such as opposing hurdlers in first-time hoods. Since 2015, the latter system has thrown up a huge loss of more than £1,200 to £1 stakes. In Class 1 company the score is just one from 84. Many more are based on breeding, draw bias, pace bias, jockeys, trainers, geldings and wind operations.
For several years I've written a new system each week for my column in Racing & Football Outlook and I often get asked how I arrive at new ideas. It's simply watching as much racing as possible, talking to trainers, jockeys, punters and journalists, and always keeping my ears open and brain alert.
Fellow William Hill radio pundit James Millman has often been a source of good systems. He could mention that the progeny of a certain sire improve with time and distance and that will prompt me to research his offspring's runners split by age and trip.
Ex-jockey Seb Sanders told me that Ralph Beckett likes to send his best fillies to Nottingham for their debuts and a quick look at the stats shows that he's won with six of the 24 qualifiers this century for a profit of £32.25 to £1 level stakes, with 11 of the 18 beaten horses finishing second, third or fourth.
Switching a draw bias on its head is another angle I favour. It's common knowledge that stall one is a good draw in sprint handicaps at Chester, so perhaps winners from the inside berth were flattered and might be worth taking on next time? Sure enough, there have been 24 stall-one winners in Chester handicaps over 5-5.5f since 2010 and all 24 were beaten on their next outing, with 17 of them finishing outside the first four.
Some other profitable systems are outlined below.
Track biases
It's common knowledge that stall one is a good draw at Chester and backing the inside berth blind showed a profit in the five years from 2000-2004 and again in five of the six years from 2009-2014.
However, from 2015-2019 you would have been in the red to the tune of £168.25. This is a once-profitable well that has clearly dried up and we need to look for less obvious angles.
Newcastle
It's notoriously difficult to make the running on the round course at Newcastle (1m2f or further), no matter how steady the early pace. Front-runners have a strike-rate of just 6.4 per cent in handicaps since the Tapeta surface was introduced in 2016.
Turning this into a profitable laying system isn't easy, as there's no guarantee that a horse who made the running last time will do so again. However, by noting Newcastle front-runners who finished in the top four after making the running on the round course and backing them next time out on the Flat (turf or all-weather), we would have won 27 of our 120 bets (22.5 per cent) and made a profit of £93.43 to £1 level stakes at SP. No fewer than 54 of the 93 beaten horses finished second or third, many at big prices.
The headwind can play havoc on the straight course at Newcastle and checking the wind speed and direction is my first port of call at any meeting. The results section of the Racing Post includes this information and making a note of any horses who ran well against the pace is a worthwhile exercise. Those drawn on the wing often struggle to get cover from the wind and it usually pays to avoid stalls one and two in big-field handicaps on the straight course. Since the start of last year, those drawn in stalls one and two in big-field (ten or more runners) Newcastle handicaps over 7f-1m have a combined record of just five winners from 208 runners. Backing them all to £1 level stakes would have resulted in a loss of £163.93.
Again, if laying is not your thing than making a note of those who ran well from these poor draws with a view to supporting them next time is the way to go..
There are certain things to look out for when punting on the all-weather at Newcastle
There are certain things to look out for when punting on the all-weather at Newcastle
John Grossick
Nottingham
Nottingham's sprint track is widely regarded as one that favours high draws (those who race near the stands' rail) but that has not been the case for a number of years.
Since the start of the 2016 season, had you backed all runners drawn in stalls one, two or three in sprint handicaps of eight or more runners, you would have found 39 winners from 324 bets (12 per cent strike-rate) for a profit of £209.21 to £1 stakes.
Thirsk
One of the strongest draw biases in recent years has been in big-field handicaps over 7f-1m at Thirsk, where the ground is often cut up on the inside, putting those drawn low at a disadvantage.
Since 2010, stalls one and two have a combined record of 1-164 in handicaps of 14 or more runners over these trips. Those same horses, regardless of where they finished, were worth following on their next start, winning 23 of their 156 races (14.7 per cent) for a profit of £13.13. Not the greatest return on investment but a further 13 finished second, including at 40-1, 28-1 and 16-1.
Epsom
Draw biases can crop up over longer trips, with the Derby course and distance putting stall one at a disadvantage, especially in big fields. Stall one is 0-81 in fields of 12 or more this century but backing these runners next time out proved profitable. Sixteen of them were turned out quickly within the next fortnight and five scored for a return of £40.88 to £1 level stakes.
Goodwood
Since the draw was reversed in 2011, those drawn high have generally struggled in 6f races at Goodwood. The better ground is usually towards the centre of the track, favouring those berthed middle to low.
In 6f races of 10-20 runners, stalls ten and above have won just 11 times from 310 runners (3.6 per cent) for a loss of £226.75 to £1 level stakes. The lay profit on these qualifiers at Betfair SP, after five per cent commission, was more than £180.
High-drawn runners also struggle on the round 7f course, especially in big-field handicaps. Since 2011, those drawn nine or above in fields of 11 or more runners recorded just eight wins from 372 starts (2.2 per cent) for a loss of £279. The lay profit after commission was more than £230.
Wetherby
In sprint handicaps at Wetherby, the inside of the track is not the place to be. Stalls one and two are just 1-34 in handicaps over 5f or 6f for a loss of £26. The sole winner was Roulston Scar, who was rated 77 when scoring on his reappearance last year. He was obviously very well handicapped and has since notched another three wins, latterly off a mark of 98.
All-weather sires
It's relatively simple to unearth the record of sires at the different all-weather venues.
Racing Post colleague Dave Bellingham has plenty of free stats available on his excellent website (sandform.co.uk) and a quick glance at the figures ahead of the Southwell meeting on February 20 showed that Dutch Art was just one from 56 with his offspring on Fibresand since 2015 for a loss of £53.09 from £1 stakes.
Dutch Art on the way to Norfolk Stakes success at Royal Ascot in 2006
Dutch Art on the way to Norfolk Stakes success at Royal Ascot in 2006
Martin Lynch
Sole qualifier Nigel Nott was on a hat-trick after wins at Chelmsford and Lingfield but he was far from certain to appreciate the switch from Polytrack and was also stepping back up in trip from 5f. At odds of around 3-1 in a four-runner line-up, there had to be value elsewhere in the race. With hindsight, I should have just laid him but opted to back runner-up Sandridge Lad. Nigel Nott drifted out to 4-1 and finished a modest third.
Three of the last four progeny of Dutch Art to taste defeat at Southwell when relatively fancied in the market (SP of 8-1 or shorter) have won when switched to another venue for their next outing (7-1, 4-1 and 6-4), with the other one finishing fourth at 20-1. Nigel Nott was flagged up by my software as a potential bet the next time he ran, as are all Dutch Art offspring who ran at Southwell on their latest start. He lined up at Chelmsford on March 12 and went down narrowly in second after being backed from 14-1 into 8-1.
All-weather surfaces
Many pundits and punters still lump all-weather runs into one basket, but form doesn't always translate between the different surfaces.
Southwell winners switching to Kempton have followed up on just five occasions from 89 attempts since 2013 for a loss of £68.81 (more than 77 per cent on turnover). Those who achieve this rare feat tend to be progressive three-year-olds who are well ahead of their marks. Red Forever, a winner off 62 at Southwell in January 2015, won twice at Kempton the following month, latterly off 74, and was then sold to race in Hong Kong.
The Southwell-to-Wolverhampton double is another difficult one to pull off, with only 18 of the 138 qualifiers successful (13 per cent strike-rate, -£53.94). Like at Kempton, those who follow up a Southwell win at Wolverhampton are usually well ahead of the handicapper and worth following.
Wolowitz is a good example – following his wide-margin Southwell maiden success, he won off 85 at Wolverhampton in February 2016 before going on to score at Lingfield on finals day. He too was sold to race in Hong Kong.
While form on different all-weather surfaces can be overvalued, all-weather form is still undervalued when it comes to turf racing. Chelmsford offers excellent prize-money and the proximity to Newmarket attracts a high standard of runner. Chelmsford handicap winners have won 67 times out of 379 when switched to turf for their next start (17.7 per cent), returning a profit of £91.50 to £1 level stakes.
Race times
This article is not going to go in depth about speed figures but a simple angle that can lead to profits on the all-weather is to keep track of course records and any horses who run close to these.
On Boxing Day last year, Clap Your Hands recorded the fourth fastest time over the 1m4f trip at Wolverhampton since the Tapeta surface was introduced in the summer of 2014 and David Simcock's gelding did so in a lowly Class 5 contest off a mark of 72, romping home by nine lengths at 9-1.
The three horses who had run quicker over the same course and distance included Natural Scenery, whose handicap mark shot up from 81 to 107, and Paths Of Glory, currently rated 97.
Clap Your Hands bolted up under a penalty the following week and comfortably defied a mark of 88 next time. He reportedly heads for the Northumberland Plate and could still be ahead of his 93 rating.
Rocket Action missed the 5f Wolverhampton course record by just two-hundredths of a second in early December and followed up over the same trip and track shortly afterwards, despite taking the rail route where the surface was riding slower. He remains a horse of great potential and should make his mark in Pattern company.
The horse who chased Rocket Action home in that Wolverhampton contest, Watchable, scored at 22-1 on his next start and has added further wins at 11-2 and 8-1.
Watchable lands the feature 5f handicap at Lingfield
Watchable lands the feature 5f handicap at Lingfield
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Jockeys
Backing jockeys blind is rarely profitable except in the short term (though Callum Rodriguez continues to buck the trend) and identifying which conditions certain pilots excel under is another angle worth exploring.
Being in the right place in a tactical race is of huge importance and I have a conversation with Eddie Fremantle to thank for steering me in the direction of Charles Bishop and his effectiveness in small fields.
In fields of five or fewer runners he has won on 42 of his 155 mounts (27.1 per cent strike-rate) for a profit of £27.43. In handicaps only, this increases to £41.45.
Andrew Mount Q&A
What was your first bet?
Durham Edition in the 1988 Grand National. He came second to Rhyme 'N' Reason.
What was your biggest win?
I used to run a Scoop6 syndicate which landed the bet three times, £446,000 on the latest occasion, though sadly it wasn't all mine.
What was your most painful loser?
I owned a share in Reve De Sivola and his 2010 Neptune defeat – he was second to Peddlers Cross after trading at 1.13 in running – was especially gutting. It was my 40th birthday and I'd backed him to a nice few quid.
Reve De Sivola (left) was narrowly beaten by Peddlers Cross at the Cheltenham Festival in 2010
Reve De Sivola (left) was narrowly beaten by Peddlers Cross at the Cheltenham Festival in 2010
Mark Cranham
Air Force One's Hennessy second in 2008 was also painful. I needed him for a share of the Scoop6 bonus fund and there was one of those oversized cheques already printed with 'Pay: Andrew Mount the sum of £1,512,000.00' written on it. Again, it wasn't all mine but I might have disappeared to Brazil.
What was the best punting advice you've ever received?
Never bet on anything that features a round ball. Sage advice from bookie Martyn Verrall, my old boss. Politics, NFL and the jockeys' championship were his specialities at the time, though the round-ball rule has since been extended to include egg-shaped ones as well.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
Global Racecourse Guide
Videos & Postcasts
Best of Members' Club
Racing Explained
Betting Masterclasses BETTING WITH STATISTICS
A winning system: using data to your advantage in the battle with the bookies
Andrew Mount on how statistics can help you to unearth winners
Andrew Mount is an advocate of using statistics to pinpoint winners
Andrew Mount is an advocate of using statistics to pinpoint winners
1 of 1
4:20PM, MAR 19 2020
Like many punters of my generation, I was influenced by journalist Nick Mordin, the Weekender columnist and systems specialist.
His book 'Betting for a Living' steered me towards a more analytical approach to betting, especially 'form breaking' – identifying the ideal race conditions for individual horses.
I wrote a series of books (Trend Horses) for Raceform using this method but, nowadays, this is only one part of my overall approach to betting.
As a tipster and pundit who covers all aspects of racing in Britain in Ireland, be it the Cheltenham Festival or Saturday night action from Wolverhampton, it's difficult to stay on top of the work required by simply studying the form in the old-fashioned way. A Saturday shift on William Hill Radio might require me to have something (vaguely) sensible to say about 60 races across eight different meetings and this is one of the reasons why I now use statistics and systems to help narrow the field and identify potential bets.
Technology has made the work more manageable and there are plenty of good software packages out there. I use two of them on a daily basis – Raceform Interactive, mostly for the excellent speed figures, and Proform, which is invaluable when it comes to researching new systems and keeping track of existing ones.
The Proform 'welcome' screen churns out the qualifiers each day from more than 1,100 systems that I'm currently running, which will number around 30 on a quiet Monday to more than 150 on a busy Saturday.
Some of these systems will be based around a specific race or meeting, such as opposing runners drawn in stall nine or above on all-weather finals day at Lingfield (just four from 129 have scored for a loss of £89 off £1 stakes).
Others will highlight more general factors such as opposing hurdlers in first-time hoods. Since 2015, the latter system has thrown up a huge loss of more than £1,200 to £1 stakes. In Class 1 company the score is just one from 84. Many more are based on breeding, draw bias, pace bias, jockeys, trainers, geldings and wind operations.
For several years I've written a new system each week for my column in Racing & Football Outlook and I often get asked how I arrive at new ideas. It's simply watching as much racing as possible, talking to trainers, jockeys, punters and journalists, and always keeping my ears open and brain alert.
Fellow William Hill radio pundit James Millman has often been a source of good systems. He could mention that the progeny of a certain sire improve with time and distance and that will prompt me to research his offspring's runners split by age and trip.
Ex-jockey Seb Sanders told me that Ralph Beckett likes to send his best fillies to Nottingham for their debuts and a quick look at the stats shows that he's won with six of the 24 qualifiers this century for a profit of £32.25 to £1 level stakes, with 11 of the 18 beaten horses finishing second, third or fourth.
Switching a draw bias on its head is another angle I favour. It's common knowledge that stall one is a good draw in sprint handicaps at Chester, so perhaps winners from the inside berth were flattered and might be worth taking on next time? Sure enough, there have been 24 stall-one winners in Chester handicaps over 5-5.5f since 2010 and all 24 were beaten on their next outing, with 17 of them finishing outside the first four.
Some other profitable systems are outlined below.
Track biases
It's common knowledge that stall one is a good draw at Chester and backing the inside berth blind showed a profit in the five years from 2000-2004 and again in five of the six years from 2009-2014.
However, from 2015-2019 you would have been in the red to the tune of £168.25. This is a once-profitable well that has clearly dried up and we need to look for less obvious angles.
Newcastle
It's notoriously difficult to make the running on the round course at Newcastle (1m2f or further), no matter how steady the early pace. Front-runners have a strike-rate of just 6.4 per cent in handicaps since the Tapeta surface was introduced in 2016.
Turning this into a profitable laying system isn't easy, as there's no guarantee that a horse who made the running last time will do so again. However, by noting Newcastle front-runners who finished in the top four after making the running on the round course and backing them next time out on the Flat (turf or all-weather), we would have won 27 of our 120 bets (22.5 per cent) and made a profit of £93.43 to £1 level stakes at SP. No fewer than 54 of the 93 beaten horses finished second or third, many at big prices.
The headwind can play havoc on the straight course at Newcastle and checking the wind speed and direction is my first port of call at any meeting. The results section of the Racing Post includes this information and making a note of any horses who ran well against the pace is a worthwhile exercise. Those drawn on the wing often struggle to get cover from the wind and it usually pays to avoid stalls one and two in big-field handicaps on the straight course. Since the start of last year, those drawn in stalls one and two in big-field (ten or more runners) Newcastle handicaps over 7f-1m have a combined record of just five winners from 208 runners. Backing them all to £1 level stakes would have resulted in a loss of £163.93.
Again, if laying is not your thing than making a note of those who ran well from these poor draws with a view to supporting them next time is the way to go..
There are certain things to look out for when punting on the all-weather at Newcastle
There are certain things to look out for when punting on the all-weather at Newcastle
John Grossick
Nottingham
Nottingham's sprint track is widely regarded as one that favours high draws (those who race near the stands' rail) but that has not been the case for a number of years.
Since the start of the 2016 season, had you backed all runners drawn in stalls one, two or three in sprint handicaps of eight or more runners, you would have found 39 winners from 324 bets (12 per cent strike-rate) for a profit of £209.21 to £1 stakes.
Thirsk
One of the strongest draw biases in recent years has been in big-field handicaps over 7f-1m at Thirsk, where the ground is often cut up on the inside, putting those drawn low at a disadvantage.
Since 2010, stalls one and two have a combined record of 1-164 in handicaps of 14 or more runners over these trips. Those same horses, regardless of where they finished, were worth following on their next start, winning 23 of their 156 races (14.7 per cent) for a profit of £13.13. Not the greatest return on investment but a further 13 finished second, including at 40-1, 28-1 and 16-1.
Epsom
Draw biases can crop up over longer trips, with the Derby course and distance putting stall one at a disadvantage, especially in big fields. Stall one is 0-81 in fields of 12 or more this century but backing these runners next time out proved profitable. Sixteen of them were turned out quickly within the next fortnight and five scored for a return of £40.88 to £1 level stakes.
Goodwood
Since the draw was reversed in 2011, those drawn high have generally struggled in 6f races at Goodwood. The better ground is usually towards the centre of the track, favouring those berthed middle to low.
In 6f races of 10-20 runners, stalls ten and above have won just 11 times from 310 runners (3.6 per cent) for a loss of £226.75 to £1 level stakes. The lay profit on these qualifiers at Betfair SP, after five per cent commission, was more than £180.
High-drawn runners also struggle on the round 7f course, especially in big-field handicaps. Since 2011, those drawn nine or above in fields of 11 or more runners recorded just eight wins from 372 starts (2.2 per cent) for a loss of £279. The lay profit after commission was more than £230.
Wetherby
In sprint handicaps at Wetherby, the inside of the track is not the place to be. Stalls one and two are just 1-34 in handicaps over 5f or 6f for a loss of £26. The sole winner was Roulston Scar, who was rated 77 when scoring on his reappearance last year. He was obviously very well handicapped and has since notched another three wins, latterly off a mark of 98.
All-weather sires
It's relatively simple to unearth the record of sires at the different all-weather venues.
Racing Post colleague Dave Bellingham has plenty of free stats available on his excellent website (sandform.co.uk) and a quick glance at the figures ahead of the Southwell meeting on February 20 showed that Dutch Art was just one from 56 with his offspring on Fibresand since 2015 for a loss of £53.09 from £1 stakes.
Dutch Art on the way to Norfolk Stakes success at Royal Ascot in 2006
Dutch Art on the way to Norfolk Stakes success at Royal Ascot in 2006
Martin Lynch
Sole qualifier Nigel Nott was on a hat-trick after wins at Chelmsford and Lingfield but he was far from certain to appreciate the switch from Polytrack and was also stepping back up in trip from 5f. At odds of around 3-1 in a four-runner line-up, there had to be value elsewhere in the race. With hindsight, I should have just laid him but opted to back runner-up Sandridge Lad. Nigel Nott drifted out to 4-1 and finished a modest third.
Three of the last four progeny of Dutch Art to taste defeat at Southwell when relatively fancied in the market (SP of 8-1 or shorter) have won when switched to another venue for their next outing (7-1, 4-1 and 6-4), with the other one finishing fourth at 20-1. Nigel Nott was flagged up by my software as a potential bet the next time he ran, as are all Dutch Art offspring who ran at Southwell on their latest start. He lined up at Chelmsford on March 12 and went down narrowly in second after being backed from 14-1 into 8-1.
All-weather surfaces
Many pundits and punters still lump all-weather runs into one basket, but form doesn't always translate between the different surfaces.
Southwell winners switching to Kempton have followed up on just five occasions from 89 attempts since 2013 for a loss of £68.81 (more than 77 per cent on turnover). Those who achieve this rare feat tend to be progressive three-year-olds who are well ahead of their marks. Red Forever, a winner off 62 at Southwell in January 2015, won twice at Kempton the following month, latterly off 74, and was then sold to race in Hong Kong.
The Southwell-to-Wolverhampton double is another difficult one to pull off, with only 18 of the 138 qualifiers successful (13 per cent strike-rate, -£53.94). Like at Kempton, those who follow up a Southwell win at Wolverhampton are usually well ahead of the handicapper and worth following.
Wolowitz is a good example – following his wide-margin Southwell maiden success, he won off 85 at Wolverhampton in February 2016 before going on to score at Lingfield on finals day. He too was sold to race in Hong Kong.
While form on different all-weather surfaces can be overvalued, all-weather form is still undervalued when it comes to turf racing. Chelmsford offers excellent prize-money and the proximity to Newmarket attracts a high standard of runner. Chelmsford handicap winners have won 67 times out of 379 when switched to turf for their next start (17.7 per cent), returning a profit of £91.50 to £1 level stakes.
Race times
This article is not going to go in depth about speed figures but a simple angle that can lead to profits on the all-weather is to keep track of course records and any horses who run close to these.
On Boxing Day last year, Clap Your Hands recorded the fourth fastest time over the 1m4f trip at Wolverhampton since the Tapeta surface was introduced in the summer of 2014 and David Simcock's gelding did so in a lowly Class 5 contest off a mark of 72, romping home by nine lengths at 9-1.
The three horses who had run quicker over the same course and distance included Natural Scenery, whose handicap mark shot up from 81 to 107, and Paths Of Glory, currently rated 97.
Clap Your Hands bolted up under a penalty the following week and comfortably defied a mark of 88 next time. He reportedly heads for the Northumberland Plate and could still be ahead of his 93 rating.
Rocket Action missed the 5f Wolverhampton course record by just two-hundredths of a second in early December and followed up over the same trip and track shortly afterwards, despite taking the rail route where the surface was riding slower. He remains a horse of great potential and should make his mark in Pattern company.
The horse who chased Rocket Action home in that Wolverhampton contest, Watchable, scored at 22-1 on his next start and has added further wins at 11-2 and 8-1.
Watchable lands the feature 5f handicap at Lingfield
Watchable lands the feature 5f handicap at Lingfield
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Jockeys
Backing jockeys blind is rarely profitable except in the short term (though Callum Rodriguez continues to buck the trend) and identifying which conditions certain pilots excel under is another angle worth exploring.
Being in the right place in a tactical race is of huge importance and I have a conversation with Eddie Fremantle to thank for steering me in the direction of Charles Bishop and his effectiveness in small fields.
In fields of five or fewer runners he has won on 42 of his 155 mounts (27.1 per cent strike-rate) for a profit of £27.43. In handicaps only, this increases to £41.45.
Andrew Mount Q&A
What was your first bet?
Durham Edition in the 1988 Grand National. He came second to Rhyme 'N' Reason.
What was your biggest win?
I used to run a Scoop6 syndicate which landed the bet three times, £446,000 on the latest occasion, though sadly it wasn't all mine.
What was your most painful loser?
I owned a share in Reve De Sivola and his 2010 Neptune defeat – he was second to Peddlers Cross after trading at 1.13 in running – was especially gutting. It was my 40th birthday and I'd backed him to a nice few quid.
Reve De Sivola (left) was narrowly beaten by Peddlers Cross at the Cheltenham Festival in 2010
Reve De Sivola (left) was narrowly beaten by Peddlers Cross at the Cheltenham Festival in 2010
Mark Cranham
Air Force One's Hennessy second in 2008 was also painful. I needed him for a share of the Scoop6 bonus fund and there was one of those oversized cheques already printed with 'Pay: Andrew Mount the sum of £1,512,000.00' written on it. Again, it wasn't all mine but I might have disappeared to Brazil.
What was the best punting advice you've ever received?
Never bet on anything that features a round ball. Sage advice from bookie Martyn Verrall, my old boss. Politics, NFL and the jockeys' championship were his specialities at the time, though the round-ball rule has since been extended to include egg-shaped ones as well.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
1 of 1
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
There are few bigger misconceptions surrounding betting on horseracing than the old trope that pedigrees don't matter.
Clearly context is important, as there will be occasions when traditional form study or following the market will tell you more about a horse's chance, but the insight pedigree study can yield means that, more often than not, it dovetails neatly with more widely used means of finding an edge.
So why does breeding count for so much? Pedigrees are not crafted by chance, but are the result of years of carefully selected matings. Billions get spent around the world each year in the pursuit of breeding as fast a horse as possible, with mating plans routinely aided by a blend of cutting-edge genetics, in-depth statistical analysis and the input and expertise of highly skilled horsemen and horsewomen.
All this means that the racehorses who eventually carry the weight of punters' cash have been precision engineered for a specific purpose. Understanding what that purpose is can go a long way when it comes to forming judgements – and ultimately separating those worth backing and those who should be avoided.
An understanding of what pedigrees tell us about variables such as precocity, stamina, preferred going and so on can help us get ahead of the crowd who rely on more readily accessible information such as form figures, jockey bookings or trainer form. With an understanding of pedigree, it is possible to form at least some level of opinion about a horse before it has even run.
Of course, not all will live up to what their breeder had in mind for them, but if you are not prepared to stomach the odd anomaly or aberration, betting on horses probably isn't for you.
For the uninitiated, delving into the world of pedigrees can be a daunting task as most racehorses hail from a family that goes back many generations. Indeed, the modern thoroughbred breed traces its roots to just three founding stallions – the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian and the Godolphin Barb – who were imported to Britain during the early 18th century.
But an in-depth understanding of equine history is not required to unlock the value of pedigrees, as more than enough information can be gleaned by simply understanding a horse's sire, dam and damsire. And these are sure to be names who have been active much more recently than the 18th century.
If the only information you have on a horse is the identity of his or her sire, you will be in possession of knowledge that can tell you plenty, as stallions tend to impart distinct sets of traits, be that speed or stamina, class (or lack thereof), precocity or a tendency to produce later-maturing types. Familiarising yourself with a stallion's stud record – many of which can be found on the Racing Post website – should reveal what their stock in trade is fairly readily.
However, much like trainers and jockeys, some stallions are better than others, sometimes significantly so. There are numerous ways to assess the respective merit of stallions, some more detailed than others, but an obvious starting point is the general sires' table.
A familiarity with the names who populate the upper echelons of this table is a simple way to identify the stallions whose progeny, generally speaking, you will want to be on the right side of. Recognising those who languish much lower down the sires' table is equally important and can be particularly useful in terms of negative prediction.
Galileo topped the British and Irish sires' table in 2019, as he has done for 11 of the last 12 seasons. He sired 82 winners – 31 of whom scored at stakes level at a clip of 41 per cent – and amassed progeny earnings of £11,945,529.
Down in 100th spot of the same table we find Lilbourne Lad, who supplied 16 winners, only one stakes scorer, and generated progeny earnings of £373,883. Admittedly that is something of an unfair comparison as opportunity plays a significant part in such statistics, as no stallion the world over will cover the quality of mares that Galileo does. Nonetheless, if pedigree really did not matter, this gulf in achievement and quality simply would not exist.
Many modern-day stallions produce three-figure numbers of foals each year, giving us more evidence to scrutinise and more opportunity to form an opinion on their – and their progeny's – ability. However, there are, quite literally, two sides to every pedigree and it would be folly to overlook the impact the dam can have on a horse's profile.
In fact, it could reasonably be argued that studying what a dam and her other foals have achieved, when that evidence is available, can provide a much more specific set of clues than studying a horse's male line.
There are a few simple questions worth asking when examining a dam's profile: What level did she run to on the track? Was she precocious or did she take time to mature? And what kind of surface did she prove best on? The answers to those questions can often reveal plenty – either positive or negative – about her progeny, as such traits tend to be passed down through the generations of a family.
Stamina is another particularly noteworthy feature in the female side of a pedigree, either from the mare's race record or from her own breeding. Each year there are countless examples of horses who improve beyond all recognition for being stepped up in trip – horses like Stradivarius, Technician and Austrian School being notable recent cases, although the same is true at a much lower level – and it is often that the clues were there within the dam's race record or pedigree.
This can be particularly eyecatching when the horse in question is also by a stallion with a proclivity for producing middle-distance types.
There is also a mare's progeny record to consider. Much like stallions, some dams are better than others, with some producing more than their fair share of quality performers, while others ultimately prove disappointing, despite sometimes having visited very capable stallions.
While the former cases are relatively uncommon, their talents are likely to be overlooked by the majority of punters. Dams' names are often much less recognisable than is the case with successful stallions, putting this kind of information beyond the grasp of the bookies' best friend – the lazy punter. However, this means that, sooner or later, those inclined to dig a little deeper will gain that all-important edge.
For example, those paying attention to female families at the Cheltenham Festival may well have given Foxhunter victor It Came To Pass a better chance than his starting price of 66-1 implied as he is out of Satellite Dancer, making him a half-brother to Gold Cup hero Lord Windermere and the high-class Sub Lieutenant.
By the same token, the information contained within a dam's pedigree and race record can be a powerful tool when it comes to negative prediction. A famous case from recent history would be Dawn Approach's run in the Derby.
An unbeaten juvenile and 2,000 Guineas winner, the Jim Bolger-trained colt's form claims were crystal clear, and he was also by a Derby winner in New Approach, but his dam recorded her best effort over 6f and was by US sprinter Phone Trick, raising major doubts about his aptitude for the mile and a half around Epsom. Despite those doubts, Dawn Approach was sent off 5-4. He trailed home last of 12, presumably having been laid by pedigree aficionados far and wide.
Somewhat ironically, the genomic profiling company co-founded by Bolger himself had firmly identified Dawn Approach as a miler, which meant the master trainer did not even enter the colt for the Derby at the yearling stage.
The value of pedigree is brought into sharp relief when dealing with horses who have little or no form upon which to judge them as their bloodlines suddenly become a focal point for determining expectations. This is particularly evident when dealing with two-year-old racing.
It highlights how specialist a discipline siring two-year-olds is that only five names appeared in both the top ten of the 2019 general sires' list and the two-year-old ranks. Unsurprisingly Galileo, the dominant stallion of the era, occupied the number one spot on both charts, while Shamardal, Frankel, Dark Angel and Kodiac made both top tens.
No Nay Never and Footstepsinthesand are among those who vaulted into the top ten on the juvenile list, while Cable Bay, Night Of Thunder and Gleneagles – whose respective first crops of two-year-olds ran last year – also showed up prominently.
While the various sires' tables provide an overview of who the most successful stallions are, information of an altogether more granular nature is required to start to squeeze the maximum out of pedigree study.
Each active stallion in Britain and Ireland, and many more from further afield, has their own profile on the Racing Post website, and behind the Progeny Statistics button is a wealth of data that can shed much light on where a sire's strengths – and possibly weaknesses – lie.
For example, compare and contrast the records of Kodiac and Nathaniel. Both finished in the top ten by total progeny earnings in Britain and Ireland in 2019, with Kodiac, seventh, amassing £2,736,385 and Nathaniel's sons and daughters accumulating £2,298,584 to put him in ninth.
Kodiac has sired four Group 1 winners during his stud career, including Tiggy Wiggy and Hello Youmzain, while Nathaniel is responsible for three elite level winners, including none other than Enable and French Oaks heroine Channel.
On the bare statistics they would appear to be fairly equally matched, and both are undeniably very good sires, but circumstance dictates that the outcome, should their progeny meet on the racecourse, should be fairly easy to determine.
Imagine two-year-old colts by Kodiac and Nathaniel are taking each other on over five furlongs in May. Kodiac is a world record-breaking sire of juvenile winners, boasts an overall strike-rate of 42 per cent with his two-year-olds, and sired 36 sons and daughters who struck at two during the 2019 season. Nathaniel's two-year-olds have a strike-rate of just 18 per cent, and he had just three juvenile winners from 27 runners in Britain and Ireland in 2019.
There are of course no hard and fast rules when it comes to pedigree, but betting is all about probability, and the balance of probability dictates that the son of Kodiac is likely to have inherited the requisite precocity to defeat the Nathaniel colt early in their two-year-old season.
However, should the two meet under different circumstances, say over 12 furlongs in the autumn of their three-year-old campaign, there is a weight of evidence that points to the outcome being very different. Kodiac's strike-rate over 12 to 13 furlongs is 18 per cent, well down on his record with two-year-olds, but Nathaniel boasts 43 winners over these distances supplied at a clip of 35 per cent.
Admittedly the cases mentioned above are exaggerated for emphasis, but the wider point is applicable to just about every race, and, much like when deciphering the clues contained within other pieces of evidence such as jockey bookings, draw stats and market moves, a level of judgement is required when using pedigree to help assess a horse's suitability for a particular set of circumstances.
James Thomas Q&A
What was your first bet?
The first horse I remember backing was Louisiade of Kevin Ryan’s at Wolverhampton on April 4, 2005. I’ve rarely been as certain about a horse since. I think I had all of £2.50 on.
What was your biggest win?
Although things have progressed slightly since the Louisiade days, I’m still very much a small-stakes punter compared to the others who have contributed to this series, so the sums involved with my biggest winners will seem thoroughly puny to many. I once won about as small a four-figure sum as it’s possible to imagine when a subsequent Stayers’ Hurdle winner scored at Nottingham on his second handicap start on the Flat. Unfortunately I can’t reveal any more than that otherwise I’d be breaking one of my golden rules of punting: no aftertiming.
What was your most painful loser?
I had followed The New Pharaoh throughout his maiden runs and was convinced the son of Montjeu was primed to strike on his second run in handicaps. I had, by my own standards, a chunky bet and felt pretty pleased with myself as the horse hit the front and went clear with two furlongs to go. With the race at his mercy, he displayed all of the worst traits associated with his sire-line at once and crashed through the rail. I've never seen anything like it before or since.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
It's hard to argue with a lot of the old cliches around betting, such as only bet what you can afford to lose and don't chase your losses. Someone also once told me to tread very carefully with horses who've displayed signs of temperament. Unfortunately I only received that pearl of wisdom after I’d backed The New Pharaoh.
Keith Melrose on the importance of pedigrees over fences
You hear little about the National Hunt bloodstock industry compared with its Flat counterpart. The relative money involved is a big part of it, while as James Willoughby memorably put it, "The problem with these up-and-coming jumps sires is that they're all dead."
Any National Hunt stallion will be well into his teens by the time his progeny are showing any worthwhile patterns or traits on the track.
National Hunt sires tend to have bigger books of mares and the whole thing is a less exact science on the bloodstock side. This point was also best made in jest by a breeding industry professional who once observed that "a jumps stallion will cover everything but the stable cat."
Be that as it may, when it comes to betting it would be argued that pedigrees are every bit as important over jumps as they are on the Flat.
Pedigrees are more important over fences than hurdles. Flat-breds, granted enough stamina in their breeding, often make perfectly good hurdlers. Historically, plenty of Champion Hurdle types started out racing on the Flat and the loss of that trend is probably down to the more extensive options overseas these days. Had he been racing now, Istabraq would have been as likely to go to the UAE as Ballydoyle on leaving John Gosden.
Once horses go over fences, the advantage of a jumps background starts to become clear. Hurdles can be, well, hurdled, but fences need to be jumped and having physical stature and a suitable pedigree is a definite positive.
Champ: a son of King's Theatre
Champ: a son of King's Theatre
Alan Crowhurst
Sons of King's Theatre, Flemensfirth and Presenting can be expected to improve over fences based on years of evidence. Only one of those, 28-year-old Flemensfirth, is still active. Relatively young sires whose progeny are showing a propensity for chasing include Getaway and Court Cave.
Most jumps sires will produce horses that stay well, too. As a very rough rule, the best two-milers have a higher tendency to be by either French or dual-purpose sires.
Knowing the sires is a good starting point, but the distaff side is just as important. For these, I use the Racing Post's pedigrees and am not being partisan when I say they are the objective industry standard. Our pedigrees man, Adrian Cook, is the best in the business at translating breeding considerations into the language punters need.
A horse from a family of pointers would be more interesting to me on its chasing debut than one out of Hasili. In general, a horse with a purely jumps pedigree will take to fences, although you do get the occasional example whose relatives were all best over hurdles and that can sometimes be worth noting.
Again, French-breds provide a slight exception. Relatively few have pure jumps pedigrees, tending instead towards dual-purpose breeding. It is not of huge concern, only occasionally in terms of stamina for three miles plus.
A rather perverse point to finish: the first thing that pedigree followers know is that there are always exceptions. Tiger Roll, by dual-purpose stallion Authorized with a fairly stout Flat pedigree, is one, although even in his case you can make out the joins. Would you expect a dual Grand National winner to jump so low? He is a slicker, nimbler beast than the Milans and Oscars that tend to surround him.
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
There are few bigger misconceptions surrounding betting on horseracing than the old trope that pedigrees don't matter.
Clearly context is important, as there will be occasions when traditional form study or following the market will tell you more about a horse's chance, but the insight pedigree study can yield means that, more often than not, it dovetails neatly with more widely used means of finding an edge.
So why does breeding count for so much? Pedigrees are not crafted by chance, but are the result of years of carefully selected matings. Billions get spent around the world each year in the pursuit of breeding as fast a horse as possible, with mating plans routinely aided by a blend of cutting-edge genetics, in-depth statistical analysis and the input and expertise of highly skilled horsemen and horsewomen.
All this means that the racehorses who eventually carry the weight of punters' cash have been precision engineered for a specific purpose. Understanding what that purpose is can go a long way when it comes to forming judgements – and ultimately separating those worth backing and those who should be avoided.
An understanding of what pedigrees tell us about variables such as precocity, stamina, preferred going and so on can help us get ahead of the crowd who rely on more readily accessible information such as form figures, jockey bookings or trainer form. With an understanding of pedigree, it is possible to form at least some level of opinion about a horse before it has even run.
Of course, not all will live up to what their breeder had in mind for them, but if you are not prepared to stomach the odd anomaly or aberration, betting on horses probably isn't for you.
For the uninitiated, delving into the world of pedigrees can be a daunting task as most racehorses hail from a family that goes back many generations. Indeed, the modern thoroughbred breed traces its roots to just three founding stallions – the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian and the Godolphin Barb – who were imported to Britain during the early 18th century.
But an in-depth understanding of equine history is not required to unlock the value of pedigrees, as more than enough information can be gleaned by simply understanding a horse's sire, dam and damsire. And these are sure to be names who have been active much more recently than the 18th century.
If the only information you have on a horse is the identity of his or her sire, you will be in possession of knowledge that can tell you plenty, as stallions tend to impart distinct sets of traits, be that speed or stamina, class (or lack thereof), precocity or a tendency to produce later-maturing types. Familiarising yourself with a stallion's stud record – many of which can be found on the Racing Post website – should reveal what their stock in trade is fairly readily.
However, much like trainers and jockeys, some stallions are better than others, sometimes significantly so. There are numerous ways to assess the respective merit of stallions, some more detailed than others, but an obvious starting point is the general sires' table.
A familiarity with the names who populate the upper echelons of this table is a simple way to identify the stallions whose progeny, generally speaking, you will want to be on the right side of. Recognising those who languish much lower down the sires' table is equally important and can be particularly useful in terms of negative prediction.
Galileo topped the British and Irish sires' table in 2019, as he has done for 11 of the last 12 seasons. He sired 82 winners – 31 of whom scored at stakes level at a clip of 41 per cent – and amassed progeny earnings of £11,945,529.
Down in 100th spot of the same table we find Lilbourne Lad, who supplied 16 winners, only one stakes scorer, and generated progeny earnings of £373,883. Admittedly that is something of an unfair comparison as opportunity plays a significant part in such statistics, as no stallion the world over will cover the quality of mares that Galileo does. Nonetheless, if pedigree really did not matter, this gulf in achievement and quality simply would not exist.
Many modern-day stallions produce three-figure numbers of foals each year, giving us more evidence to scrutinise and more opportunity to form an opinion on their – and their progeny's – ability. However, there are, quite literally, two sides to every pedigree and it would be folly to overlook the impact the dam can have on a horse's profile.
In fact, it could reasonably be argued that studying what a dam and her other foals have achieved, when that evidence is available, can provide a much more specific set of clues than studying a horse's male line.
There are a few simple questions worth asking when examining a dam's profile: What level did she run to on the track? Was she precocious or did she take time to mature? And what kind of surface did she prove best on? The answers to those questions can often reveal plenty – either positive or negative – about her progeny, as such traits tend to be passed down through the generations of a family.
Stamina is another particularly noteworthy feature in the female side of a pedigree, either from the mare's race record or from her own breeding. Each year there are countless examples of horses who improve beyond all recognition for being stepped up in trip – horses like Stradivarius, Technician and Austrian School being notable recent cases, although the same is true at a much lower level – and it is often that the clues were there within the dam's race record or pedigree.
This can be particularly eyecatching when the horse in question is also by a stallion with a proclivity for producing middle-distance types.
There is also a mare's progeny record to consider. Much like stallions, some dams are better than others, with some producing more than their fair share of quality performers, while others ultimately prove disappointing, despite sometimes having visited very capable stallions.
While the former cases are relatively uncommon, their talents are likely to be overlooked by the majority of punters. Dams' names are often much less recognisable than is the case with successful stallions, putting this kind of information beyond the grasp of the bookies' best friend – the lazy punter. However, this means that, sooner or later, those inclined to dig a little deeper will gain that all-important edge.
For example, those paying attention to female families at the Cheltenham Festival may well have given Foxhunter victor It Came To Pass a better chance than his starting price of 66-1 implied as he is out of Satellite Dancer, making him a half-brother to Gold Cup hero Lord Windermere and the high-class Sub Lieutenant.
By the same token, the information contained within a dam's pedigree and race record can be a powerful tool when it comes to negative prediction. A famous case from recent history would be Dawn Approach's run in the Derby.
An unbeaten juvenile and 2,000 Guineas winner, the Jim Bolger-trained colt's form claims were crystal clear, and he was also by a Derby winner in New Approach, but his dam recorded her best effort over 6f and was by US sprinter Phone Trick, raising major doubts about his aptitude for the mile and a half around Epsom. Despite those doubts, Dawn Approach was sent off 5-4. He trailed home last of 12, presumably having been laid by pedigree aficionados far and wide.
Somewhat ironically, the genomic profiling company co-founded by Bolger himself had firmly identified Dawn Approach as a miler, which meant the master trainer did not even enter the colt for the Derby at the yearling stage.
The value of pedigree is brought into sharp relief when dealing with horses who have little or no form upon which to judge them as their bloodlines suddenly become a focal point for determining expectations. This is particularly evident when dealing with two-year-old racing.
It highlights how specialist a discipline siring two-year-olds is that only five names appeared in both the top ten of the 2019 general sires' list and the two-year-old ranks. Unsurprisingly Galileo, the dominant stallion of the era, occupied the number one spot on both charts, while Shamardal, Frankel, Dark Angel and Kodiac made both top tens.
No Nay Never and Footstepsinthesand are among those who vaulted into the top ten on the juvenile list, while Cable Bay, Night Of Thunder and Gleneagles – whose respective first crops of two-year-olds ran last year – also showed up prominently.
While the various sires' tables provide an overview of who the most successful stallions are, information of an altogether more granular nature is required to start to squeeze the maximum out of pedigree study.
Each active stallion in Britain and Ireland, and many more from further afield, has their own profile on the Racing Post website, and behind the Progeny Statistics button is a wealth of data that can shed much light on where a sire's strengths – and possibly weaknesses – lie.
For example, compare and contrast the records of Kodiac and Nathaniel. Both finished in the top ten by total progeny earnings in Britain and Ireland in 2019, with Kodiac, seventh, amassing £2,736,385 and Nathaniel's sons and daughters accumulating £2,298,584 to put him in ninth.
Kodiac has sired four Group 1 winners during his stud career, including Tiggy Wiggy and Hello Youmzain, while Nathaniel is responsible for three elite level winners, including none other than Enable and French Oaks heroine Channel.
On the bare statistics they would appear to be fairly equally matched, and both are undeniably very good sires, but circumstance dictates that the outcome, should their progeny meet on the racecourse, should be fairly easy to determine.
Imagine two-year-old colts by Kodiac and Nathaniel are taking each other on over five furlongs in May. Kodiac is a world record-breaking sire of juvenile winners, boasts an overall strike-rate of 42 per cent with his two-year-olds, and sired 36 sons and daughters who struck at two during the 2019 season. Nathaniel's two-year-olds have a strike-rate of just 18 per cent, and he had just three juvenile winners from 27 runners in Britain and Ireland in 2019.
There are of course no hard and fast rules when it comes to pedigree, but betting is all about probability, and the balance of probability dictates that the son of Kodiac is likely to have inherited the requisite precocity to defeat the Nathaniel colt early in their two-year-old season.
However, should the two meet under different circumstances, say over 12 furlongs in the autumn of their three-year-old campaign, there is a weight of evidence that points to the outcome being very different. Kodiac's strike-rate over 12 to 13 furlongs is 18 per cent, well down on his record with two-year-olds, but Nathaniel boasts 43 winners over these distances supplied at a clip of 35 per cent.
Admittedly the cases mentioned above are exaggerated for emphasis, but the wider point is applicable to just about every race, and, much like when deciphering the clues contained within other pieces of evidence such as jockey bookings, draw stats and market moves, a level of judgement is required when using pedigree to help assess a horse's suitability for a particular set of circumstances.
James Thomas Q&A
What was your first bet?
The first horse I remember backing was Louisiade of Kevin Ryan’s at Wolverhampton on April 4, 2005. I’ve rarely been as certain about a horse since. I think I had all of £2.50 on.
What was your biggest win?
Although things have progressed slightly since the Louisiade days, I’m still very much a small-stakes punter compared to the others who have contributed to this series, so the sums involved with my biggest winners will seem thoroughly puny to many. I once won about as small a four-figure sum as it’s possible to imagine when a subsequent Stayers’ Hurdle winner scored at Nottingham on his second handicap start on the Flat. Unfortunately I can’t reveal any more than that otherwise I’d be breaking one of my golden rules of punting: no aftertiming.
What was your most painful loser?
I had followed The New Pharaoh throughout his maiden runs and was convinced the son of Montjeu was primed to strike on his second run in handicaps. I had, by my own standards, a chunky bet and felt pretty pleased with myself as the horse hit the front and went clear with two furlongs to go. With the race at his mercy, he displayed all of the worst traits associated with his sire-line at once and crashed through the rail. I've never seen anything like it before or since.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
It's hard to argue with a lot of the old cliches around betting, such as only bet what you can afford to lose and don't chase your losses. Someone also once told me to tread very carefully with horses who've displayed signs of temperament. Unfortunately I only received that pearl of wisdom after I’d backed The New Pharaoh.
Keith Melrose on the importance of pedigrees over fences
You hear little about the National Hunt bloodstock industry compared with its Flat counterpart. The relative money involved is a big part of it, while as James Willoughby memorably put it, "The problem with these up-and-coming jumps sires is that they're all dead."
Any National Hunt stallion will be well into his teens by the time his progeny are showing any worthwhile patterns or traits on the track.
National Hunt sires tend to have bigger books of mares and the whole thing is a less exact science on the bloodstock side. This point was also best made in jest by a breeding industry professional who once observed that "a jumps stallion will cover everything but the stable cat."
Be that as it may, when it comes to betting it would be argued that pedigrees are every bit as important over jumps as they are on the Flat.
Pedigrees are more important over fences than hurdles. Flat-breds, granted enough stamina in their breeding, often make perfectly good hurdlers. Historically, plenty of Champion Hurdle types started out racing on the Flat and the loss of that trend is probably down to the more extensive options overseas these days. Had he been racing now, Istabraq would have been as likely to go to the UAE as Ballydoyle on leaving John Gosden.
Once horses go over fences, the advantage of a jumps background starts to become clear. Hurdles can be, well, hurdled, but fences need to be jumped and having physical stature and a suitable pedigree is a definite positive.
Champ: a son of King's Theatre
Champ: a son of King's Theatre
Alan Crowhurst
Sons of King's Theatre, Flemensfirth and Presenting can be expected to improve over fences based on years of evidence. Only one of those, 28-year-old Flemensfirth, is still active. Relatively young sires whose progeny are showing a propensity for chasing include Getaway and Court Cave.
Most jumps sires will produce horses that stay well, too. As a very rough rule, the best two-milers have a higher tendency to be by either French or dual-purpose sires.
Knowing the sires is a good starting point, but the distaff side is just as important. For these, I use the Racing Post's pedigrees and am not being partisan when I say they are the objective industry standard. Our pedigrees man, Adrian Cook, is the best in the business at translating breeding considerations into the language punters need.
A horse from a family of pointers would be more interesting to me on its chasing debut than one out of Hasili. In general, a horse with a purely jumps pedigree will take to fences, although you do get the occasional example whose relatives were all best over hurdles and that can sometimes be worth noting.
Again, French-breds provide a slight exception. Relatively few have pure jumps pedigrees, tending instead towards dual-purpose breeding. It is not of huge concern, only occasionally in terms of stamina for three miles plus.
A rather perverse point to finish: the first thing that pedigree followers know is that there are always exceptions. Tiger Roll, by dual-purpose stallion Authorized with a fairly stout Flat pedigree, is one, although even in his case you can make out the joins. Would you expect a dual Grand National winner to jump so low? He is a slicker, nimbler beast than the Milans and Oscars that tend to surround him.
Ron Wood examines the opportunities overseas
1 of 1
UPDATED 10:50AM, MAR 25 2020
In any normal year it would be possible to punt on horses all over the world, from Albany in Australia to Zia Park in the US, and in this day and age there's nothing to stop someone reaching expert level on any of the major jurisdictions.
Some guidance specific to different countries is below, but they all have in common the same key factors to consider first.
To kick off, you need to know what the track is like, what the weather is doing, whether there is a bias and so on. It's worth checking the weather a few days out as it can be difficult to get advanced going descriptions in many places.
Get to know the key players. Jockey and trainer stats have their uses but also picking up on their habits is part of the puzzle. For example, knowing what moves the local riders are likely to make in certain race scenarios can help in assessing race dynamics.
When it comes to websites, hopefully you'll be doing most of your studying on racingpost.com, with an ever-increasing number of international cards and results. But there are some useful nuggets to be found elsewhere.
For instance, there's tracking data like Trakus at many courses. Plus, there's often video form on official racing sites or YouTube.
You also need to be aware that there can be a few betting options – bookmakers, exchanges, local pools – so check how and when you'll be able to get on. In some on-course pools, like in the US, there will be 'exotic' betting ranging from a simple exacta to the Pick 6.
Check the bookmakers' small print, though. They will often have different maximum payouts for foreign racing, plus promotions like best-odds guaranteed may not always apply and their disqualification rules might differ from the norm.
Australia
There's action daily, with the season beginning on August 1 and concluding on July 30. It's mainly Flat racing, although there is still a small jumps programme.
The majority of races are on turf and the configuration of the tracks can vary significantly. The going is rated from 1 to 10, with 1 being the fastest/firmest and 10 the most heavy/testing.
They love a carnival in Australia, with the nation's top races featuring among many such events. There are even carnivals within carnivals!
The biggest jamboree of all is the 50-day Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival which features the four-day Melbourne Cup Carnival at Flemington. The Cup itself is on the first Tuesday of November.
Day in, day out, bookies offer fixed-odds and pool betting on a host of tracks and there's also exchange punting.
Long term, there are ante-post markets on all the major races and these can be quite robust books with some firms being well established in Australia.
Winx somewhat ruined the Cox Plate (the premier weight-for-age contest) as a betting medium – certainly the win-only market – when winning the race for four straight years from 2015, going off odds-on for the last three. But the 2019 running went to Lys Gracieux for Japan.
It was a reminder that runners from Japan, who had the one-two in the Melbourne Cup in 2006, have to be seriously considered. European-trained runners, as well as imports from Europe, have also enjoyed tremendous levels of success.
Australia has specialised in fast horses so their top middle-distance and staying races can lack depth, leaving some major prizes open to international challengers who might not be the best in their own – or original – jurisdiction.
Winx, though, was an exception; nothing could lay a glove on her.
Vow And Declare won the 2019 Melbourne Cup for the home team, an extra-special success as he was bred in Australia. However, the next three finishers were European raiders, and in the two years before that runners trained in Europe filled the first three places.
If it's good quality turf racing with an international flavour that you're interested in, then the Australian carnivals can be worth focusing on.
France
In normal circumstances there's racing every day of the year – including Christmas Day – in France and it can be some of the best in the world for Flat and jumps.
The highlight of the jumping calendar is the Grand-Steeplechase de Paris (scheduled for May in 2020) at Auteuil, which hosts all of the country's nine Grade 1 jump races.
The Flat season features a number of top-quality contests, including at a boutique meeting at Deauville in August, and in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe France has one of the top turf races in the world.
It's mainly turf racing but there are a number of courses with artificial surfaces.
A good 'in' can be to follow the top juvenile contests and the spring Classic trials, and not necessarily just with a view to racing in France.
The French have enjoyed tremendous success on their travels, including in British and Irish Classics and at the Breeders' Cup. With French races often being run at a steady early pace, turning into a late dash, their horses can have the tactical gears to excel on the tight US circuits.
As well as there being fixed-odds and exchange markets, some firms will facilitate betting into the PMU (Pari Mutuel Urbain), a state-controlled betting system; the local tote, basically.
North America
The 2020 season has been thrown into disarray by the coronavirus, with the Kentucky Derby being moved from its usual slot on the first Saturday in May to the first Saturday in September.
In normal circumstances the 'Road to the Kentucky Derby' – a series of races in which horses compete for points to qualify for the country's most famous race – is an ideal way of keeping up to speed.
With racing almost every day across the country and at a host of tracks, you have to be selective and the idea behind following the Derby hopefuls isn't just about trying to identify the winner of the big one.
Just about everyone who breeds horses in the US dreams of winning the Kentucky Derby, so any runner who has shown enough promise will be given the chance to prove their worth.
That's a lot of horses and only 20 can make it into the gate at Churchill Downs.
Churchill Downs: we will have to wait until September for this year's Kentucky Derby
Churchill Downs: we will have to wait until September for this year's Kentucky Derby
Matt Wooley
Although that's actually the biggest field of any US race, it's not a lot considering how many set out on the Derby path, so having already familiarised yourself with these runners when they turn up elsewhere can be advantageous.
The season runs all year round, taking place on left-handed courses, usually on dirt or turf, although there are still a few synthetic tracks, notably at Woodbine in Canada.
If turf is unraceable, races will often be moved to the dirt (or all-weather), although it's rare for a major race to be switched.
It's almost all Flat racing but there is a small jumps programme. The bulk of US races are claimers, rather than handicaps.
The main tracks stage a series of 'meets', a number of regular fixtures over a set period, and there's something of an east- and west-coast divide.
The highlight of the summer on the east coast is Saratoga in upstate New York, while at the same time on the west coast there's Del Mar in southern California.
When autumn/fall comes around it's time for the Breeders' Cup preps and, if you've already followed the Derby trail (not forgetting the Kentucky Oaks for the fillies), as well as some of the better meets, you'll be well placed.
With the majority of horses trained on the track, most of the workouts are published – and many of them can even be viewed online via xbtv.com. This is a fantastic resource, including interviews with connections, yet it feels like it's still being underused by horse players.
There's betting available on loads of different tracks, with bookies and exchanges, as well as the option of some local pools.
United Arab Emirates
There are five tracks in the UAE – Flat only – with the season running from around October to April, and there's betting available through bookies and exchanges on Jebel Ali and Meydan.
Jebel Ali is quirky: right-handed, with a straight chute and a trademark uphill finish. It can be hard work for horses and punters; some (horses and punters) just don't take to it.
The premier venue is Meydan, which has a big turf course – left-handed and straight – as well as a smaller inner dirt course.
In early January, the Dubai Carnival, which has been going since 2004, signals the start of the international racing calendar.
The Godolphin team is the starting point in the search for winners, with the Saeed bin Suroor-trained Thunder Snow winning the Dubai World Cup for them in 2018 and 2019.
It's another Godolphin trainer, Charlie Appleby, who has had the greatest numerical success in recent years. Between them, Appleby and Bin Suroor have won 28 of 65 carnival races (43 per cent) in 2020 ahead of next week's World Cup fixture.
Still, that leaves a chunk of winners to be found elsewhere and Godolphin usually leave the non-carnival races for others.
It often takes a battled-hardened horse to win on the Meydan dirt, a demanding surface with lots of kickback, so locally trained runners can be particularly strong.
The Dubai Racing Channel can be accessed online and their extremely knowledgeable presenters and guests offer key insight, with 'The Winning Line' essential viewing if you're taking this jurisdiction seriously. See @DubaiRacingTV on Twitter for links.
Elsewhere
There are many other places around the globe that punters have access to these days – too many to mention them all – but it's worth touching on a few more.
Bahrain is a region on the rise in the racing world. It staged its first international race in November 2019, and at the inaugural Saudi Cup meeting in February 2020, the feature event of Saudi Arabia's first international raceday, the first two races were won by horses trained in Bahrain – at 40-1 and 66-1.
Japan has some of the best racing in the world including major events like November's Japan Cup. The day-to-day stuff may not be that popular, but some firms do offer prices and more bookies may soon be joining in.
Punters have long had access to racing in South Africa, which can reach a good standard and has produced many star horses on an international stage. Sky Sports Racing often covers it.
In recent years South Korea has got in on the act, staging a couple of international races on their deep sand surface at Seoul in September.
Dirt racing explained
Dirt races tend to be run at fast early/slow late pace scenarios, the complete opposite to all-weather and turf racing, and reliable speed figures are essential in assessing the form.
On that note, check out Daily Racing Form's Beyer figures in the US and our own Topspeed for racing in UAE.
Horses chasing the pace can get taken out of their comfort zone or simply discouraged by kickback, either way not being able to make up ground, so those with early gears are often favoured.
That is unless the leaders completely overdo it or simply don't stay, in which case the 'deep closers' (polite term for the plodders) can come to the fore.
It's essential to always be on the lookout for track biases – that goes for any track but particularly on dirt – and spotting them early can be rewarding.
But even if not cashing in on the day, if you've noted horses impacted by a bias, positively or negatively, the payout may come at a later point.
Dirt surfaces can vary greatly from course to course, and the descriptions can range from fast to sloppy or muddy. A track may be described as 'sealed' if it was packed down before the rain arrived, allowing water to run off it.
The best horses will cope with most conditions on dirt, although they can be undone by the biases.
Ron Wood Q&A
What was your first bet?
I don't remember a specific bet but in my school days I used to give my Mum a list of horses to back on a Saturday. Come to think of it, I don't think my account was ever in credit and I'm not sure I ever settled that bill!
What was your biggest winner?
Justify in the 2018 Kentucky Derby. It's unusual for the Racing Post to carry the result of a seemingly random maiden in the US, but we made an exception for this horse and the first quote was 40-1.
What was your most painful loser?
On the old Champions Day at Newmarket, in 2006, I had a small accumulator on Sleeping Indian (won), Detroit City (won), Pride (won), Teofilo (won), Finsceal Beo (won), Hawridge Prince (won) and . . . Pinson (lost).
What was the best punting advice you ever received?
The best punters I know are extremely meticulous; reading, listening, watching and just generally studying as much as they can. It's a lesson seeing such attention to detail, cutting out the guesswork as much as possible.
Graham Cunningham on Hong Kong
Outline the golden rules of Hong Kong racing and how to make money on it. The brief from the Racing Post's premium editor Dylan Hill was simple enough – as is the golden rule.
Whether you are in Wan Chai or Wandsworth, the secret to winning at Sha Tin and Happy Valley lies in backing horses whose chances are greater than the odds available.
But that's where two worlds can collide. British and Irish punters reared on a rich diet of competing sports books with assorted concessions can baulk at the notion of taking on a Tote system that holds 17.5 per cent of each main pool with no ability to lock in a price.
Likewise, hardened HK devotees find precious little appeal in an old-school menu dangling value in one hand and restrictions in the other if you have the temerity to beat the house.
But if three years in HK have taught this low roller anything it is that the wider world's punting palate craves something much more exotic than meat and one veg win and place markets.
And nailing the exotics – headed by the Quinella, Quinella Place (QP), Tierce and Trio – is crucial for anyone aiming to succeed in one of the most competitive racing arenas on the planet.
To clarify, the Quinella is the first two home in either order and is HK's most popular bet; the QP is two to finish in the first three; the Tierce is the first three in correct order; and the Trio is the first three in any order.
Fuelled by a breadth of accurate data that remains a pipedream for most European punters – sectional times, body weights, trackwork and vet records – Hong Kong betting markets pinpoint leading players with high efficiency.
Market leaders salute at just over 30 per cent, while the place strike-rate for jollies nudges two in three. That's a high clip in a culture of 12- and 14-runner handicaps but following favourites, especially those ridden by Joao Moreira and Zac Purton, is a recipe for a steady supply of winners and even steadier bankroll erosion.
The key to profit lies in having the right names on your slip when favourites falter and finding those names starts with assessing the way each individual race will develop.
Pace and position are fundamentals of HK racing's closely knit handicap system. A soft lead is worth its weight in gold, a strong pace generally sets things up for finishers, and riders who get caught three wide with no cover soon find their ears burning.
As with any racing system, the only way to get a true feel for tactical nuance is to put in the work. The rewards are there for those who do so most efficiently, but how about a few pointers for those who don't take pace maps to bed?
An expansive mindset rates high on the list. Casting wide to perm four or more horses in a race doesn't come naturally to most Euro punters but going deep is essential if you want to land the odd whopper and finding the right longshot turns a decent ticket into a dream ticket.
Logic suggests that if Moreira and Purton are overbet then there must be mileage in noting some of their rivals. Up-and-coming South African Grant Van Niekerk performs strongly compared to market expectations, while the focus on star imports leads to homegrown riders like Matthew Poon and Matthew Chadwick hitting the board at big prices in a way that can be very rewarding.
Grant Van Niekerk: star performer in Hong Kong
Grant Van Niekerk: star performer in Hong Kong
Trainer changes are another useful angle. The fact that HK switches generally involve moving just a few metres along the Sha Tin shedrow shows a new trainer is far more important than a so-called 'change of scenery', and Tony Millard and Caspar Fownes are highly adept at reviving ailing causes.
Last but not least, HK's markets are unusual in that strong punting edges can arise in the highest-profile races.
One horse generally emerges as a strong favourite even when all evidence suggests there is nothing between key players, while a tendency to underestimate the depth of Japanese racing reared its head on HKIR day last December when Glory Vase, Admire Mars and Win Bright captured Group 1 prizes at 7-1, 26-1 and 9-2.
International commingling now accounts for up to 20 per cent of HK turnover and Jockey Club CEO Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges describes its continued growth as "a golden opportunity to harvest the full potential of global racing".
The range of betting options can seem bewildering but, with Dubai and several other high-profile destinations set to join Royal Ascot on the World Pool rota, punters all over the world can either stick with their traditional menu or opt for something spicier.
To bend a phrase Hong Kongers are extremely familiar with, it's essentially a case of two countries, two systems. But those who play the HK markets seriously rise or fall by their ability to price a race accurately and their willingness to swim against the tide of market opinion.
And, when you look at it that way, maybe the two systems aren’t that different after all.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
Free: Making it pay all over the world: the intricacies of the international scene
It's all in the breeding: the most underrated weapon in a punter's armoury
A winning system: using data to your advantage in the battle with the bookies
Still great value on the exchanges - you just might have to work a bit harder
James Willoughby: why speed is of the essence when rating horses
Betting for a living: a pro punter's insight on how to make gambling pay
Why there's never been a better time to be a serious student of the form book
1 of 1
UPDATED 10:50AM, MAR 25 2020
In any normal year it would be possible to punt on horses all over the world, from Albany in Australia to Zia Park in the US, and in this day and age there's nothing to stop someone reaching expert level on any of the major jurisdictions.
Some guidance specific to different countries is below, but they all have in common the same key factors to consider first.
To kick off, you need to know what the track is like, what the weather is doing, whether there is a bias and so on. It's worth checking the weather a few days out as it can be difficult to get advanced going descriptions in many places.
Get to know the key players. Jockey and trainer stats have their uses but also picking up on their habits is part of the puzzle. For example, knowing what moves the local riders are likely to make in certain race scenarios can help in assessing race dynamics.
When it comes to websites, hopefully you'll be doing most of your studying on racingpost.com, with an ever-increasing number of international cards and results. But there are some useful nuggets to be found elsewhere.
For instance, there's tracking data like Trakus at many courses. Plus, there's often video form on official racing sites or YouTube.
You also need to be aware that there can be a few betting options – bookmakers, exchanges, local pools – so check how and when you'll be able to get on. In some on-course pools, like in the US, there will be 'exotic' betting ranging from a simple exacta to the Pick 6.
Check the bookmakers' small print, though. They will often have different maximum payouts for foreign racing, plus promotions like best-odds guaranteed may not always apply and their disqualification rules might differ from the norm.
Australia
There's action daily, with the season beginning on August 1 and concluding on July 30. It's mainly Flat racing, although there is still a small jumps programme.
The majority of races are on turf and the configuration of the tracks can vary significantly. The going is rated from 1 to 10, with 1 being the fastest/firmest and 10 the most heavy/testing.
They love a carnival in Australia, with the nation's top races featuring among many such events. There are even carnivals within carnivals!
The biggest jamboree of all is the 50-day Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival which features the four-day Melbourne Cup Carnival at Flemington. The Cup itself is on the first Tuesday of November.
Day in, day out, bookies offer fixed-odds and pool betting on a host of tracks and there's also exchange punting.
Long term, there are ante-post markets on all the major races and these can be quite robust books with some firms being well established in Australia.
Winx somewhat ruined the Cox Plate (the premier weight-for-age contest) as a betting medium – certainly the win-only market – when winning the race for four straight years from 2015, going off odds-on for the last three. But the 2019 running went to Lys Gracieux for Japan.
It was a reminder that runners from Japan, who had the one-two in the Melbourne Cup in 2006, have to be seriously considered. European-trained runners, as well as imports from Europe, have also enjoyed tremendous levels of success.
Australia has specialised in fast horses so their top middle-distance and staying races can lack depth, leaving some major prizes open to international challengers who might not be the best in their own – or original – jurisdiction.
Winx, though, was an exception; nothing could lay a glove on her.
Vow And Declare won the 2019 Melbourne Cup for the home team, an extra-special success as he was bred in Australia. However, the next three finishers were European raiders, and in the two years before that runners trained in Europe filled the first three places.
If it's good quality turf racing with an international flavour that you're interested in, then the Australian carnivals can be worth focusing on.
France
In normal circumstances there's racing every day of the year – including Christmas Day – in France and it can be some of the best in the world for Flat and jumps.
The highlight of the jumping calendar is the Grand-Steeplechase de Paris (scheduled for May in 2020) at Auteuil, which hosts all of the country's nine Grade 1 jump races.
The Flat season features a number of top-quality contests, including at a boutique meeting at Deauville in August, and in the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe France has one of the top turf races in the world.
It's mainly turf racing but there are a number of courses with artificial surfaces.
A good 'in' can be to follow the top juvenile contests and the spring Classic trials, and not necessarily just with a view to racing in France.
The French have enjoyed tremendous success on their travels, including in British and Irish Classics and at the Breeders' Cup. With French races often being run at a steady early pace, turning into a late dash, their horses can have the tactical gears to excel on the tight US circuits.
As well as there being fixed-odds and exchange markets, some firms will facilitate betting into the PMU (Pari Mutuel Urbain), a state-controlled betting system; the local tote, basically.
North America
The 2020 season has been thrown into disarray by the coronavirus, with the Kentucky Derby being moved from its usual slot on the first Saturday in May to the first Saturday in September.
In normal circumstances the 'Road to the Kentucky Derby' – a series of races in which horses compete for points to qualify for the country's most famous race – is an ideal way of keeping up to speed.
With racing almost every day across the country and at a host of tracks, you have to be selective and the idea behind following the Derby hopefuls isn't just about trying to identify the winner of the big one.
Just about everyone who breeds horses in the US dreams of winning the Kentucky Derby, so any runner who has shown enough promise will be given the chance to prove their worth.
That's a lot of horses and only 20 can make it into the gate at Churchill Downs.
Churchill Downs: we will have to wait until September for this year's Kentucky Derby
Churchill Downs: we will have to wait until September for this year's Kentucky Derby
Matt Wooley
Although that's actually the biggest field of any US race, it's not a lot considering how many set out on the Derby path, so having already familiarised yourself with these runners when they turn up elsewhere can be advantageous.
The season runs all year round, taking place on left-handed courses, usually on dirt or turf, although there are still a few synthetic tracks, notably at Woodbine in Canada.
If turf is unraceable, races will often be moved to the dirt (or all-weather), although it's rare for a major race to be switched.
It's almost all Flat racing but there is a small jumps programme. The bulk of US races are claimers, rather than handicaps.
The main tracks stage a series of 'meets', a number of regular fixtures over a set period, and there's something of an east- and west-coast divide.
The highlight of the summer on the east coast is Saratoga in upstate New York, while at the same time on the west coast there's Del Mar in southern California.
When autumn/fall comes around it's time for the Breeders' Cup preps and, if you've already followed the Derby trail (not forgetting the Kentucky Oaks for the fillies), as well as some of the better meets, you'll be well placed.
With the majority of horses trained on the track, most of the workouts are published – and many of them can even be viewed online via xbtv.com. This is a fantastic resource, including interviews with connections, yet it feels like it's still being underused by horse players.
There's betting available on loads of different tracks, with bookies and exchanges, as well as the option of some local pools.
United Arab Emirates
There are five tracks in the UAE – Flat only – with the season running from around October to April, and there's betting available through bookies and exchanges on Jebel Ali and Meydan.
Jebel Ali is quirky: right-handed, with a straight chute and a trademark uphill finish. It can be hard work for horses and punters; some (horses and punters) just don't take to it.
The premier venue is Meydan, which has a big turf course – left-handed and straight – as well as a smaller inner dirt course.
In early January, the Dubai Carnival, which has been going since 2004, signals the start of the international racing calendar.
The Godolphin team is the starting point in the search for winners, with the Saeed bin Suroor-trained Thunder Snow winning the Dubai World Cup for them in 2018 and 2019.
It's another Godolphin trainer, Charlie Appleby, who has had the greatest numerical success in recent years. Between them, Appleby and Bin Suroor have won 28 of 65 carnival races (43 per cent) in 2020 ahead of next week's World Cup fixture.
Still, that leaves a chunk of winners to be found elsewhere and Godolphin usually leave the non-carnival races for others.
It often takes a battled-hardened horse to win on the Meydan dirt, a demanding surface with lots of kickback, so locally trained runners can be particularly strong.
The Dubai Racing Channel can be accessed online and their extremely knowledgeable presenters and guests offer key insight, with 'The Winning Line' essential viewing if you're taking this jurisdiction seriously. See @DubaiRacingTV on Twitter for links.
Elsewhere
There are many other places around the globe that punters have access to these days – too many to mention them all – but it's worth touching on a few more.
Bahrain is a region on the rise in the racing world. It staged its first international race in November 2019, and at the inaugural Saudi Cup meeting in February 2020, the feature event of Saudi Arabia's first international raceday, the first two races were won by horses trained in Bahrain – at 40-1 and 66-1.
Japan has some of the best racing in the world including major events like November's Japan Cup. The day-to-day stuff may not be that popular, but some firms do offer prices and more bookies may soon be joining in.
Punters have long had access to racing in South Africa, which can reach a good standard and has produced many star horses on an international stage. Sky Sports Racing often covers it.
In recent years South Korea has got in on the act, staging a couple of international races on their deep sand surface at Seoul in September.
Dirt racing explained
Dirt races tend to be run at fast early/slow late pace scenarios, the complete opposite to all-weather and turf racing, and reliable speed figures are essential in assessing the form.
On that note, check out Daily Racing Form's Beyer figures in the US and our own Topspeed for racing in UAE.
Horses chasing the pace can get taken out of their comfort zone or simply discouraged by kickback, either way not being able to make up ground, so those with early gears are often favoured.
That is unless the leaders completely overdo it or simply don't stay, in which case the 'deep closers' (polite term for the plodders) can come to the fore.
It's essential to always be on the lookout for track biases – that goes for any track but particularly on dirt – and spotting them early can be rewarding.
But even if not cashing in on the day, if you've noted horses impacted by a bias, positively or negatively, the payout may come at a later point.
Dirt surfaces can vary greatly from course to course, and the descriptions can range from fast to sloppy or muddy. A track may be described as 'sealed' if it was packed down before the rain arrived, allowing water to run off it.
The best horses will cope with most conditions on dirt, although they can be undone by the biases.
Ron Wood Q&A
What was your first bet?
I don't remember a specific bet but in my school days I used to give my Mum a list of horses to back on a Saturday. Come to think of it, I don't think my account was ever in credit and I'm not sure I ever settled that bill!
What was your biggest winner?
Justify in the 2018 Kentucky Derby. It's unusual for the Racing Post to carry the result of a seemingly random maiden in the US, but we made an exception for this horse and the first quote was 40-1.
What was your most painful loser?
On the old Champions Day at Newmarket, in 2006, I had a small accumulator on Sleeping Indian (won), Detroit City (won), Pride (won), Teofilo (won), Finsceal Beo (won), Hawridge Prince (won) and . . . Pinson (lost).
What was the best punting advice you ever received?
The best punters I know are extremely meticulous; reading, listening, watching and just generally studying as much as they can. It's a lesson seeing such attention to detail, cutting out the guesswork as much as possible.
Graham Cunningham on Hong Kong
Outline the golden rules of Hong Kong racing and how to make money on it. The brief from the Racing Post's premium editor Dylan Hill was simple enough – as is the golden rule.
Whether you are in Wan Chai or Wandsworth, the secret to winning at Sha Tin and Happy Valley lies in backing horses whose chances are greater than the odds available.
But that's where two worlds can collide. British and Irish punters reared on a rich diet of competing sports books with assorted concessions can baulk at the notion of taking on a Tote system that holds 17.5 per cent of each main pool with no ability to lock in a price.
Likewise, hardened HK devotees find precious little appeal in an old-school menu dangling value in one hand and restrictions in the other if you have the temerity to beat the house.
But if three years in HK have taught this low roller anything it is that the wider world's punting palate craves something much more exotic than meat and one veg win and place markets.
And nailing the exotics – headed by the Quinella, Quinella Place (QP), Tierce and Trio – is crucial for anyone aiming to succeed in one of the most competitive racing arenas on the planet.
To clarify, the Quinella is the first two home in either order and is HK's most popular bet; the QP is two to finish in the first three; the Tierce is the first three in correct order; and the Trio is the first three in any order.
Fuelled by a breadth of accurate data that remains a pipedream for most European punters – sectional times, body weights, trackwork and vet records – Hong Kong betting markets pinpoint leading players with high efficiency.
Market leaders salute at just over 30 per cent, while the place strike-rate for jollies nudges two in three. That's a high clip in a culture of 12- and 14-runner handicaps but following favourites, especially those ridden by Joao Moreira and Zac Purton, is a recipe for a steady supply of winners and even steadier bankroll erosion.
The key to profit lies in having the right names on your slip when favourites falter and finding those names starts with assessing the way each individual race will develop.
Pace and position are fundamentals of HK racing's closely knit handicap system. A soft lead is worth its weight in gold, a strong pace generally sets things up for finishers, and riders who get caught three wide with no cover soon find their ears burning.
As with any racing system, the only way to get a true feel for tactical nuance is to put in the work. The rewards are there for those who do so most efficiently, but how about a few pointers for those who don't take pace maps to bed?
An expansive mindset rates high on the list. Casting wide to perm four or more horses in a race doesn't come naturally to most Euro punters but going deep is essential if you want to land the odd whopper and finding the right longshot turns a decent ticket into a dream ticket.
Logic suggests that if Moreira and Purton are overbet then there must be mileage in noting some of their rivals. Up-and-coming South African Grant Van Niekerk performs strongly compared to market expectations, while the focus on star imports leads to homegrown riders like Matthew Poon and Matthew Chadwick hitting the board at big prices in a way that can be very rewarding.
Grant Van Niekerk: star performer in Hong Kong
Grant Van Niekerk: star performer in Hong Kong
Trainer changes are another useful angle. The fact that HK switches generally involve moving just a few metres along the Sha Tin shedrow shows a new trainer is far more important than a so-called 'change of scenery', and Tony Millard and Caspar Fownes are highly adept at reviving ailing causes.
Last but not least, HK's markets are unusual in that strong punting edges can arise in the highest-profile races.
One horse generally emerges as a strong favourite even when all evidence suggests there is nothing between key players, while a tendency to underestimate the depth of Japanese racing reared its head on HKIR day last December when Glory Vase, Admire Mars and Win Bright captured Group 1 prizes at 7-1, 26-1 and 9-2.
International commingling now accounts for up to 20 per cent of HK turnover and Jockey Club CEO Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges describes its continued growth as "a golden opportunity to harvest the full potential of global racing".
The range of betting options can seem bewildering but, with Dubai and several other high-profile destinations set to join Royal Ascot on the World Pool rota, punters all over the world can either stick with their traditional menu or opt for something spicier.
To bend a phrase Hong Kongers are extremely familiar with, it's essentially a case of two countries, two systems. But those who play the HK markets seriously rise or fall by their ability to price a race accurately and their willingness to swim against the tide of market opinion.
And, when you look at it that way, maybe the two systems aren’t that different after all.
Read more from our Betting Masterclasses series:
Free: Making it pay all over the world: the intricacies of the international scene
It's all in the breeding: the most underrated weapon in a punter's armoury
A winning system: using data to your advantage in the battle with the bookies
Still great value on the exchanges - you just might have to work a bit harder
James Willoughby: why speed is of the essence when rating horses
Betting for a living: a pro punter's insight on how to make gambling pay
Why there's never been a better time to be a serious student of the form book
Why the all-weather is the perfect betting medium for the discerning punter
Our all-weather expert Pietro Innocenzi talks through his betting strategy
Our all-weather expert Pietro Innocenzi talks through his betting strategy
1 of 1
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
I've been an avid follower of all-weather racing for as long as I can remember and focus the majority of my betting on it. It has given me my biggest-priced winner in Arcangues, who landed the 1993 Breeders' Cup Classic at odds of 133-1, and more recently my biggest win, thanks to a treble that ran into five figures.
The main reason it appeals more than turf as a betting medium is because you are dealing with a smaller pool of runners, with fewer unknown quantities, and the same horses often race against each other every week on similar surfaces.
That cuts down the amount of time you have to spend on studying form and watching replays, especially as you become familiar with certain runners who turn out regularly. This is still valid, despite the fairly recent addition to the roster of Newcastle, a track that attracts big fields at each meeting.
Arcangues: won the Breeders' Cup Classic at 133-1 in 1993
Arcangues: won the Breeders' Cup Classic at 133-1 in 1993
J.D. Cuban (Getty Images)
Replays
It's hard to comprehend nowadays that not much longer than a generation ago most gambling was done blind, so to speak. There was certainly no access to replays for the vast majority of punters when I started betting seriously in the early 1990s. Those who could afford to subscribe to the old SIS were at a huge advantage, along with anyone able to spend every day at the track or in the bookies watching the racing. Back then I tended to use speed figures in an attempt to get an edge on those who perhaps just studied the form in the paper, but nothing can come close to actually watching a race.
I know I'm at an advantage by working in the industry. However, it takes me not much more than an hour to go through a week's worth of replays. That's doable in anyone's book, surely.
The downside is that the more people who have access to replays and are disciplined enough to spend the time analysing them, the less chance you have of spotting something that someone else hasn't seen.
Still, it's obviously where you have to start, and then everything else should lead off it.
Lower-class races
I am attracted to lower-class races, and there are plenty of them. The main reason – and this is admittedly a bit of a generalisation – is because horses in the 45-70 range find it difficult to maintain their form and there are significantly fewer progressive runners lower down the food chain (the lower you go the harder it is for them to put two similar performances together, with runners at Southwell the exception).
So, in theory, a last-time-out winner is often worth taking on, especially if it had a smooth passage. This is handy from a punting perspective because horses with 1s next to their name tend to be supported in the betting more than those without, meaning the value will probably lie elsewhere and at a bigger price.
Excuses and something different
There are two types of horse I tend to look for when tipping and gambling.
Firstly, they had a valid excuse on at least one of their last two starts – and preferably both. Along with an unfavourable draw, excuses could include poor track position, a slow start or getting hampered. However, having one (or more) excuse in itself is usually not enough to justify backing a horse. Ideally, I want the runner in question to have still shown something. For example, it rallied strongly after being hampered or was still in contention approaching the final furlong after racing without cover throughout.
There's a danger of being sucked into backing any horse who is hampered out the back when seemingly going well, but there are so many of them on the all-weather that it's unlikely even half are unlucky.
In a similar vein, runners who stay on strongly in the home straight can be rather eyecatching – particularly up the short one at Lingfield – and are often considered unfortunate. Be careful with this type as more often than not it's a case of the pace collapsing in front. In fact I pretty much ignore exposed or older runners who seemingly motor through the final furlong. There are exceptions, though, which brings me to the pace angle excuse and this is one that I look for at any level of racing.
There is enough free information out there to make this a science rather than an art nowadays, although sometimes all you need are your eyes. If a runner is alone in making up ground from the rear in a race that clearly favoured those who raced prominently, then I will take note. Likewise, if one manages to stay on after racing near or at the head of affairs while the rest of the prominent racers drop away, that horse will probably go in my tracker.
I say 'probably' as there could be other factors at work. For instance, you could find a runner in stall one stays on much better than a runner from stall 12 after they duelled for the lead. The runner from stall 12 may have had to use significant energy to get across from a wide draw, unlike the runner on the rail in one.
There was no better example of how important pace is in a race than in last month's Winter Derby at Lingfield, when Frankie Dettori was allowed to do his own thing in front on Dubai Warrior and never saw another horse.
Bangkok was all the rage having smashed the course record in the trial, finishing more than four lengths clear of Court House. However, he'd clearly benefited from an end-to-end gallop that day and Frankie Dettori was wise to it, dawdling through the early stages before winding things up. After refusing to settle early on, the favourite had little in the tank in the home straight.
Dubai Warrior: won the Winter Derby under an excellent front-running ride by Frankie Dettori
Dubai Warrior: won the Winter Derby under an excellent front-running ride by Frankie Dettori
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Bangkok covered the course in 2min 0.54sec in the trial and finished the race well, the strong early fractions clearly helping him to run to what was probably the peak of his ability; Dubai Warrior stopped the clock at 2min 1.64 sec in the Derby yet Bangkok was unable to even get past Court House in the home straight.
Predictably, Dubai Warrior was installed as odds-on favourite for the Easter Classic immediately after the race, but I can see Bangkok turning the tables if the race is ever run as there's no way Dubai Warrior will be allowed such a soft lead again.
The other type of horse I tend to back is one who is doing something different, often after running moderately on its latest start. For example, it could be stepping up or down in trip, switching from Fibresand to Polytrack or from turf to Tapeta, or returning from a break. You get the gist. Also, more subtly, it could be a runner who was asked to race in a manner it was unaccustomed to last time (like forcing the pace when usually held up or vice-versa).
They say a change is as good as a rest and I find it can often lead to an improved performance. For instance, expecting an exposed five-year-old to suddenly show something more over 6f after racing exclusively at the trip for a few weeks reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity, regardless of the fact its handicap mark may have dropped to a potentially dangerous level. However, ask it to go a stride quicker or slower over a shorter or longer trip and you may have a chance of sparking a revival.
Three of my biggest-priced winning tips in recent months – Waddat, Never A Word and Glan Y Gors – were all doing something different.
Waddat, who is related to all-weather winners, caught my eye when leading a group for a long way that raced on the slower part of the track in terrible ground at Newbury in October. I backed him at 16-1 when he switched surfaces in a less competitive race at Wolverhampton the following month and he obliged at 8-1.
A lot of people had understandably long given up on Never A Word, who was a 33-race maiden when he lined up at Southwell in early January. However, his four runs at the end of last year had come over 2m½f and he'd held every chance approaching the final two furlongs before finishing fourth at Southwell on his previous start. I thought he was an excellent each-way bet off 3lb lower down in trip in a weaker contest and he scored at 12-1.
Glan Y Gors, who won three times at Newcastle last season, was returning from a five-month break at a track that clearly brings out the best in him and was on a lower mark than for two of those victories. He'd won when fresh before, so I thought he justified being an each-way selection at forecast big odds. He went in at 11-1, having been 20-1 in the morning.
Although Waddat went on to complete a hat-trick, he was something of an exception in being so lightly raced. Generally these horses are rarely of interest to me after a win – indeed, Never A Word has been beaten over 74 lengths in four subsequent starts. There's no room for sentiment.
The draw
Understandably, a lot of emphasis is placed on the final stages of a race when it comes to analysis. I've always thought, though, that the first couple of furlongs can be equally as important when it comes to the all-weather.
Leaving Newcastle aside and the 5f course at Southwell, every race is run around at least one bend and the first one often looms up soon after the start (think 7f contests at Wolverhampton), so bagging a decent position is not only often crucial, it can be extremely difficult from a high draw in big fields.
Even in races over further, it regularly takes runners drawn wide a couple of furlongs to tack across and settle into a position – and that's when they don't get stuck on the outside of the field without cover.
While it's impossible to quantify just how much extra ground a horse has to cover from a high draw, it's hardly rocket science to say it's much more preferable to come out of the stalls maintaining a straight line and immediately settling into a rhythm rather than having to switch left or right and go looking for cover. And that's not taking into account the extra energy a horse may have to use in doing so.
Probably the most recent example of such a runner I've backed is Traveller, who failed to find cover from stall 11 when a well-beaten ninth at Wolverhampton early last month. Although I would have normally liked to see more before placing a bet, the fact he'd won his previous start was reason enough for me to give him another chance when he returned to Dunstall Park and he got up close home after being backed into 7-2.
Southwell
With its idiosyncratic Fibresand surface, Southwell is a track for specialists. Plenty of runners who handle Polytrack and Tapeta at the other five tracks run as though they've never encountered an artificial surface before when they experience Fibresand for the first time, but if a runner immediately takes to it you have to take note.
With fewer horses handling it than the shallower surfaces elsewhere, races can be uncompetitive and it is therefore easier for a runner to build a sequence, often defying swift rises up the weights. Take Suitcase 'N' Taxi, who was extremely frustrating on turf last season but rose 20lb in the weights after completing a Fibresand four-timer over the winter, winning off marks of 58, 63, 70 and 73.
I make a note of any Southwell debutant who travels well for a long way and, in contrast to the other tracks, I'm actually attracted to last-time-out winners at the course, particularly those at a lower level – Light Lily, for instance, who left her previous form well behind when making a winning Fibresand debut off a mark of 45 at 50-1 last month and easily followed up a few days later.
Pietro Innocenzi Q&A
What was your first bet?
£1 win on Corbiere in the 1983 Grand National. It all seemed so easy as a schoolkid but Little Polveir in 1989 is the only National winner I've backed since!
What was your biggest win?
A few quid short of £15,000 thanks to three doubles and a treble on some bog-standard all-weather racing in 2015 (taking early prices the evening before boosted the winnings somewhat).
What was your most painful loser?
Forpadydeplasterer finishing fourth in the 2008 Ballymore. Master Minded and Katchit had landed the first two legs of doubles and a treble and I stood to win £39,000. That was slightly more hurtful than the time I was part of a syndicate that blew out in the final leg of a jackpot despite having the first three in the betting in our perm. That would have been well into five figures too.
What was the best punting advice you’ve received?
There's no room for sentiment.
Course guide by David Bellingham
When all-weather racing in Britain started, it was suggested that you couldn't rely on turf form being transferred to artificial surfaces, but I would also now argue that you can't rely on all-weather form being replicated between tracks with the same surface.
Being right-handed, Kempton Polytrack form may not work out at Lingfield, Chelmsford or Dundalk; horses may enjoy the Newcastle Tapeta but not show similar form at Wolverhampton; and, as Pietro Innocenzi says, Southwell Fibresand form is of limited value anywhere else. Some can produce their best at more than one track, but I would give priority to form shown at the same venue first.
Chelmsford is a specialists' track and it does appear to be a disadvantage to stick to the inside rail in the home straight. Often the runners fan wide on turning in with the main action unfolding down the centre. In races from 5f to 1m a low draw and prominent early position are an advantage.
At Dundalk there isn't a major draw bias, but a prominent early pitch is an advantage over 5f to 1m whereas it's tough for front-runners over 1m2f-plus.
Kempton has two tracks, the inner for races over 5f and 1m2f and the outer for all other trips. There isn't a draw bias over 5f but early speed is key, while from 6f to 1m a low draw and prominent early position are positives and also over 1m3f, where the first bend comes up quickly.
It's worth keeping an eye out for a track bias, as at some meetings switching to the inside rail after the cutaway can be an advantage whereas at others the opposite is true. Kempton is a track for specialists with some horses clearly suited by going right-handed.
At Lingfield one place you don't usually want to be is against the inside rail in the home straight, so the performance of any horse who either wins or goes close having taken that route can be marked up. Over 5f to 7f a prominent position is an advantage, but the only distance with a notable draw bias is 1m2f where a low berth is vital.
Newcastle has a straight mile on which there is no draw bias at any trip. Front-runners have a good record over 5f, but over 1m4f and 2m they have a hard time of it. Again, Newcastle is track for specialists.
Southwell is the ultimate track for specialists. It was the kiss of death to stick to the inside rail in the straight, but I'm not sure that's true nowadays. There is no draw bias, except over 5f where a low berth and early pace are an advantage.
Sire statistics are particularly worthwhile here and a few to pick out looking at their records over the past five years are Smart Strike (38 per cent), Dubawi (37 per cent), Sea The Stars (31 per cent), Starspangledbanner (30 per cent) and Street Cry (25 per cent).
At Wolverhampton, a low draw and prominent early position are an advantage over 5f and 6f, but it's difficult for front-runners in races over 1m4f-plus.
Our all-weather expert Pietro Innocenzi talks through his betting strategy
Our all-weather expert Pietro Innocenzi talks through his betting strategy
1 of 1
1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
I've been an avid follower of all-weather racing for as long as I can remember and focus the majority of my betting on it. It has given me my biggest-priced winner in Arcangues, who landed the 1993 Breeders' Cup Classic at odds of 133-1, and more recently my biggest win, thanks to a treble that ran into five figures.
The main reason it appeals more than turf as a betting medium is because you are dealing with a smaller pool of runners, with fewer unknown quantities, and the same horses often race against each other every week on similar surfaces.
That cuts down the amount of time you have to spend on studying form and watching replays, especially as you become familiar with certain runners who turn out regularly. This is still valid, despite the fairly recent addition to the roster of Newcastle, a track that attracts big fields at each meeting.
Arcangues: won the Breeders' Cup Classic at 133-1 in 1993
Arcangues: won the Breeders' Cup Classic at 133-1 in 1993
J.D. Cuban (Getty Images)
Replays
It's hard to comprehend nowadays that not much longer than a generation ago most gambling was done blind, so to speak. There was certainly no access to replays for the vast majority of punters when I started betting seriously in the early 1990s. Those who could afford to subscribe to the old SIS were at a huge advantage, along with anyone able to spend every day at the track or in the bookies watching the racing. Back then I tended to use speed figures in an attempt to get an edge on those who perhaps just studied the form in the paper, but nothing can come close to actually watching a race.
I know I'm at an advantage by working in the industry. However, it takes me not much more than an hour to go through a week's worth of replays. That's doable in anyone's book, surely.
The downside is that the more people who have access to replays and are disciplined enough to spend the time analysing them, the less chance you have of spotting something that someone else hasn't seen.
Still, it's obviously where you have to start, and then everything else should lead off it.
Lower-class races
I am attracted to lower-class races, and there are plenty of them. The main reason – and this is admittedly a bit of a generalisation – is because horses in the 45-70 range find it difficult to maintain their form and there are significantly fewer progressive runners lower down the food chain (the lower you go the harder it is for them to put two similar performances together, with runners at Southwell the exception).
So, in theory, a last-time-out winner is often worth taking on, especially if it had a smooth passage. This is handy from a punting perspective because horses with 1s next to their name tend to be supported in the betting more than those without, meaning the value will probably lie elsewhere and at a bigger price.
Excuses and something different
There are two types of horse I tend to look for when tipping and gambling.
Firstly, they had a valid excuse on at least one of their last two starts – and preferably both. Along with an unfavourable draw, excuses could include poor track position, a slow start or getting hampered. However, having one (or more) excuse in itself is usually not enough to justify backing a horse. Ideally, I want the runner in question to have still shown something. For example, it rallied strongly after being hampered or was still in contention approaching the final furlong after racing without cover throughout.
There's a danger of being sucked into backing any horse who is hampered out the back when seemingly going well, but there are so many of them on the all-weather that it's unlikely even half are unlucky.
In a similar vein, runners who stay on strongly in the home straight can be rather eyecatching – particularly up the short one at Lingfield – and are often considered unfortunate. Be careful with this type as more often than not it's a case of the pace collapsing in front. In fact I pretty much ignore exposed or older runners who seemingly motor through the final furlong. There are exceptions, though, which brings me to the pace angle excuse and this is one that I look for at any level of racing.
There is enough free information out there to make this a science rather than an art nowadays, although sometimes all you need are your eyes. If a runner is alone in making up ground from the rear in a race that clearly favoured those who raced prominently, then I will take note. Likewise, if one manages to stay on after racing near or at the head of affairs while the rest of the prominent racers drop away, that horse will probably go in my tracker.
I say 'probably' as there could be other factors at work. For instance, you could find a runner in stall one stays on much better than a runner from stall 12 after they duelled for the lead. The runner from stall 12 may have had to use significant energy to get across from a wide draw, unlike the runner on the rail in one.
There was no better example of how important pace is in a race than in last month's Winter Derby at Lingfield, when Frankie Dettori was allowed to do his own thing in front on Dubai Warrior and never saw another horse.
Bangkok was all the rage having smashed the course record in the trial, finishing more than four lengths clear of Court House. However, he'd clearly benefited from an end-to-end gallop that day and Frankie Dettori was wise to it, dawdling through the early stages before winding things up. After refusing to settle early on, the favourite had little in the tank in the home straight.
Dubai Warrior: won the Winter Derby under an excellent front-running ride by Frankie Dettori
Dubai Warrior: won the Winter Derby under an excellent front-running ride by Frankie Dettori
Mark Cranham (racingpost.com/photos)
Bangkok covered the course in 2min 0.54sec in the trial and finished the race well, the strong early fractions clearly helping him to run to what was probably the peak of his ability; Dubai Warrior stopped the clock at 2min 1.64 sec in the Derby yet Bangkok was unable to even get past Court House in the home straight.
Predictably, Dubai Warrior was installed as odds-on favourite for the Easter Classic immediately after the race, but I can see Bangkok turning the tables if the race is ever run as there's no way Dubai Warrior will be allowed such a soft lead again.
The other type of horse I tend to back is one who is doing something different, often after running moderately on its latest start. For example, it could be stepping up or down in trip, switching from Fibresand to Polytrack or from turf to Tapeta, or returning from a break. You get the gist. Also, more subtly, it could be a runner who was asked to race in a manner it was unaccustomed to last time (like forcing the pace when usually held up or vice-versa).
They say a change is as good as a rest and I find it can often lead to an improved performance. For instance, expecting an exposed five-year-old to suddenly show something more over 6f after racing exclusively at the trip for a few weeks reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity, regardless of the fact its handicap mark may have dropped to a potentially dangerous level. However, ask it to go a stride quicker or slower over a shorter or longer trip and you may have a chance of sparking a revival.
Three of my biggest-priced winning tips in recent months – Waddat, Never A Word and Glan Y Gors – were all doing something different.
Waddat, who is related to all-weather winners, caught my eye when leading a group for a long way that raced on the slower part of the track in terrible ground at Newbury in October. I backed him at 16-1 when he switched surfaces in a less competitive race at Wolverhampton the following month and he obliged at 8-1.
A lot of people had understandably long given up on Never A Word, who was a 33-race maiden when he lined up at Southwell in early January. However, his four runs at the end of last year had come over 2m½f and he'd held every chance approaching the final two furlongs before finishing fourth at Southwell on his previous start. I thought he was an excellent each-way bet off 3lb lower down in trip in a weaker contest and he scored at 12-1.
Glan Y Gors, who won three times at Newcastle last season, was returning from a five-month break at a track that clearly brings out the best in him and was on a lower mark than for two of those victories. He'd won when fresh before, so I thought he justified being an each-way selection at forecast big odds. He went in at 11-1, having been 20-1 in the morning.
Although Waddat went on to complete a hat-trick, he was something of an exception in being so lightly raced. Generally these horses are rarely of interest to me after a win – indeed, Never A Word has been beaten over 74 lengths in four subsequent starts. There's no room for sentiment.
The draw
Understandably, a lot of emphasis is placed on the final stages of a race when it comes to analysis. I've always thought, though, that the first couple of furlongs can be equally as important when it comes to the all-weather.
Leaving Newcastle aside and the 5f course at Southwell, every race is run around at least one bend and the first one often looms up soon after the start (think 7f contests at Wolverhampton), so bagging a decent position is not only often crucial, it can be extremely difficult from a high draw in big fields.
Even in races over further, it regularly takes runners drawn wide a couple of furlongs to tack across and settle into a position – and that's when they don't get stuck on the outside of the field without cover.
While it's impossible to quantify just how much extra ground a horse has to cover from a high draw, it's hardly rocket science to say it's much more preferable to come out of the stalls maintaining a straight line and immediately settling into a rhythm rather than having to switch left or right and go looking for cover. And that's not taking into account the extra energy a horse may have to use in doing so.
Probably the most recent example of such a runner I've backed is Traveller, who failed to find cover from stall 11 when a well-beaten ninth at Wolverhampton early last month. Although I would have normally liked to see more before placing a bet, the fact he'd won his previous start was reason enough for me to give him another chance when he returned to Dunstall Park and he got up close home after being backed into 7-2.
Southwell
With its idiosyncratic Fibresand surface, Southwell is a track for specialists. Plenty of runners who handle Polytrack and Tapeta at the other five tracks run as though they've never encountered an artificial surface before when they experience Fibresand for the first time, but if a runner immediately takes to it you have to take note.
With fewer horses handling it than the shallower surfaces elsewhere, races can be uncompetitive and it is therefore easier for a runner to build a sequence, often defying swift rises up the weights. Take Suitcase 'N' Taxi, who was extremely frustrating on turf last season but rose 20lb in the weights after completing a Fibresand four-timer over the winter, winning off marks of 58, 63, 70 and 73.
I make a note of any Southwell debutant who travels well for a long way and, in contrast to the other tracks, I'm actually attracted to last-time-out winners at the course, particularly those at a lower level – Light Lily, for instance, who left her previous form well behind when making a winning Fibresand debut off a mark of 45 at 50-1 last month and easily followed up a few days later.
Pietro Innocenzi Q&A
What was your first bet?
£1 win on Corbiere in the 1983 Grand National. It all seemed so easy as a schoolkid but Little Polveir in 1989 is the only National winner I've backed since!
What was your biggest win?
A few quid short of £15,000 thanks to three doubles and a treble on some bog-standard all-weather racing in 2015 (taking early prices the evening before boosted the winnings somewhat).
What was your most painful loser?
Forpadydeplasterer finishing fourth in the 2008 Ballymore. Master Minded and Katchit had landed the first two legs of doubles and a treble and I stood to win £39,000. That was slightly more hurtful than the time I was part of a syndicate that blew out in the final leg of a jackpot despite having the first three in the betting in our perm. That would have been well into five figures too.
What was the best punting advice you’ve received?
There's no room for sentiment.
Course guide by David Bellingham
When all-weather racing in Britain started, it was suggested that you couldn't rely on turf form being transferred to artificial surfaces, but I would also now argue that you can't rely on all-weather form being replicated between tracks with the same surface.
Being right-handed, Kempton Polytrack form may not work out at Lingfield, Chelmsford or Dundalk; horses may enjoy the Newcastle Tapeta but not show similar form at Wolverhampton; and, as Pietro Innocenzi says, Southwell Fibresand form is of limited value anywhere else. Some can produce their best at more than one track, but I would give priority to form shown at the same venue first.
Chelmsford is a specialists' track and it does appear to be a disadvantage to stick to the inside rail in the home straight. Often the runners fan wide on turning in with the main action unfolding down the centre. In races from 5f to 1m a low draw and prominent early position are an advantage.
At Dundalk there isn't a major draw bias, but a prominent early pitch is an advantage over 5f to 1m whereas it's tough for front-runners over 1m2f-plus.
Kempton has two tracks, the inner for races over 5f and 1m2f and the outer for all other trips. There isn't a draw bias over 5f but early speed is key, while from 6f to 1m a low draw and prominent early position are positives and also over 1m3f, where the first bend comes up quickly.
It's worth keeping an eye out for a track bias, as at some meetings switching to the inside rail after the cutaway can be an advantage whereas at others the opposite is true. Kempton is a track for specialists with some horses clearly suited by going right-handed.
At Lingfield one place you don't usually want to be is against the inside rail in the home straight, so the performance of any horse who either wins or goes close having taken that route can be marked up. Over 5f to 7f a prominent position is an advantage, but the only distance with a notable draw bias is 1m2f where a low berth is vital.
Newcastle has a straight mile on which there is no draw bias at any trip. Front-runners have a good record over 5f, but over 1m4f and 2m they have a hard time of it. Again, Newcastle is track for specialists.
Southwell is the ultimate track for specialists. It was the kiss of death to stick to the inside rail in the straight, but I'm not sure that's true nowadays. There is no draw bias, except over 5f where a low berth and early pace are an advantage.
Sire statistics are particularly worthwhile here and a few to pick out looking at their records over the past five years are Smart Strike (38 per cent), Dubawi (37 per cent), Sea The Stars (31 per cent), Starspangledbanner (30 per cent) and Street Cry (25 per cent).
At Wolverhampton, a low draw and prominent early position are an advantage over 5f and 6f, but it's difficult for front-runners in races over 1m4f-plus.
Keith Melrose explains how trainers are creatures of habit
1 of 1
UPDATED 1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
In the 364 days between his first and second Gold Cup triumph, Al Boum Photo spent a smidgen over 12 minutes, plus a few spins of the paddock, visible to the public. There were 155 days between Pinatubo's debut win and the Dewhurst, but there will be 203 between then and the 2,000 Guineas, should the latter take place as scheduled on May 2.
The point being made, with all the subtlety of a claw hammer, is that horses spend the overwhelming majority of their lives away from the public gaze. For most of the time, that means being in the care of their trainer.
Of course, there is barely a horseracing punter who does not pay some sort of attention to trainers. Whether that is your Uncle Phil who backs Mark Johnston runners blind, or the bookmakers who make the Nicky Henderson runner favourite for the maiden hurdle at Chepstow by default. But just because something is considered it does not mean it is given the weight it warrants.
For a significant number of punters, it is evident that trainer form is hardly considered beyond the championship table and the hot/cold list. To refer back to the example of the Chepstow maiden hurdle, without form to go on the first show of betting is determined by little else than looking at the yards of the runners and ranking them by reputation. Anything that forces the bookies to guess is good news for punters, so take a step back and formulate how we can take advantage.
While a stable's standing can be overplayed, its current form is often misinterpreted. A simple measure of strike-rate over a fortnight is flawed. The same, but with ran-to-form percentages, is viable but will still throw up plenty of false positives, especially over jumps.
It needs to be remembered that what we are doing is little more than looking at a tiny snapshot from a long string of figures. Statistics need to be used advisedly. Luckily Andrew Mount, one of the best in this regard, will be along shortly to guide us all.
Personal preference is to take a more qualitative approach. It is more work, but it is a related contingency to suggest it is therefore the best way to gain an edge.
The serious sports bettor will read the human side to inform their bets. Knowledge of who is temperamental, or mentally fragile, or who is off for their life in front of a home crowd is known to come in handy when looking at, say, tennis players or golfers.
Trainers, more than jockeys, provide racing's equivalent. The cliche is accurate, horses are not machines, but their trainers are human and their habits and attributes can be more easily read.
Of course, insiders will always know more about a certain yard than even the most diligent punter. But their viewpoint is not panoramic, nor objective. The dogs that barked for Shishkin were also in pretty good voice for Tombee Du Ciel (well-backed but well-beaten Summit Hurdle favourite on her sole start for the Henderson stable). Or imagine the confidence that would have been felt by some of those who backed Nathaniel at odds of 7-1 for his debut, only for him to run into Frankel.
Shishkin (right) lived up to the hype in the Supreme Novices' Hurdle
Shishkin (right) lived up to the hype in the Supreme Novices' Hurdle
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
The punter who is immersed, rather than involved, does not often have it right off in maidens. For those who focus on the details of trainer form, the best edges come with much more experienced horses. Those who have priced-in habits that may not transfer to their new yard. Others that continually shape well for a stable with more than its fair share of weak finishers.
A lot of what is learned will be extremely specific. A trainer's regime might change next season when they employ a new assistant. The references made below are unlikely to be evergreen. They are used mostly to be illustrative of the general points to look out for when assessing horses relative to their yards.
Follow the money
It does not take an awful long time to figure out which yards are more likely to get stuck into one they fancy. Most stables will do this to an extent, like the Nathaniel (well supported into 3-1 after opening at 7-1) example above. Others, generally at the lower end, tend to make things more obvious.
There are a few telltale signs. The horse who goes off short for bumpers, then seems to be unfancied in novice hurdles before being backed once in handicaps. The trainer whose runners are always primed for a run at Ffos Las. When a horse has clear preferences but does not run such conditions until just the right time. And so on.
It also helps to know when the most informative money from a certain stable is put down. When Gordon Elliott was coming through the ranks and improving horses from other yards left, right and centre, those who were fancied to take off right away were generally backed early doors.
With such strictly controlled stakes the night before, most yards have become better at keeping a lid on things for longer. Nowadays, it makes sense to assume that the late money on Betfair is the most indicative. This money can even be missed by the SPs, so be prepared to watch the exchanges to find out what is really going on.
Habit-forming
It has become less obvious in recent years, but it used to be the case that you could make out the pecking order of Willie Mullins' novices simply from the races they ran in. His main RSA hope would run in the Flogas. Four of his six Supreme winners warmed up by running in the same race Asterion Forlonge won in February.
Many trainers are creatures of habit and have races they reliably target. While we all know about the Pipes and the Imperial Cup, this can be taken further to gain genuine insight. Paul Nicholls runs more good horses at his local track, Wincanton, than might otherwise be expected of a trainer who ends up with loads of rangy staying chasers. Kevin Ryan nearly always sends his good two-year-olds to York. Locality is often a strong clue.
There is also a broader sense to this, which might be called the Prescott Principle. Sir Mark Prescott’s modus operandi of starting off inexperienced horses over shorter trips before stepping them up to staying handicaps is the best-known example.
Trainers tend to have a style by which they bring along younger horses in the yard. Punters who are aware of trainers' individual methods can be the first to make judgements about horses that do not conform.
To use Prescott as an example, since 2008 he has had only nine winning two-year-old debutants in maidens. Their median peak RPR is 98, so they tend to wind up above-average. Most tellingly, the median SP was 9-4.
Environmental concerns
Suppose that 90 per cent of the time, what Charlie Hills and Kerry Lee do is much the same. How are the horses that emerge so different? Trainers are influenced by a number of factors, but the three most common are: the types of horse they receive; the people they learned from; and the situation of their training facilities.
When Harry Fry and Dan Skelton first took out their own licences, their styles were similar to their shared mentor, Paul Nicholls. Colin Tizzard, whose son Joe was stable jockey at Ditcheat and who receives similar sort of stock, also has something of a Nicholls-shaped yard.
Anyone who wants to judge how good a trainer is needs to have some awareness of the horses they are supplied with. Some trainers get excellent ammunition but land few blows. Others manage to regularly fashion silk purses from sows' ears. A good example pointed out to me some years ago is Cumbria trainer Maurice Barnes.
With the best will in the world, Barnes often gets horses not bred to win anything stronger than a maiden point. His strike-rate stands up remarkably well, so when he sent Knockoura, a point-winning relative of Scotsirish and Sayparee, over fences this winter I just about followed him blind (won two of four starts, finishing second in another at 50-1).
Best of British
A young horse who arrives in Britain from France will usually be expected to improve by a large amount, stones in many cases. One who comes from Ireland would generally be treated with much more caution, but in a lot of cases that is not justified.
The received wisdom seems to be that plenty of good trainers in Ireland are crowded out by the powerhouse operations: Mullins and Elliott over jumps, Aidan O'Brien on the Flat.
There is of course some truth to this, but Mullins' strike-rate over jumps in Ireland (27 per cent, 20 per cent in Pattern races) relative to Britain (15 per cent) is attributable to more than just him competing in the most select races when on his travels.
It is a numbers game, really. Britain is much bigger than Ireland, well over ten times in population terms. Yet the Racing Post site has 722 trainers in the standings for the 2019-20 British jumps season, with 484 in Ireland.
It is somewhat similar to the difference between the English and Scottish football leagues. Even before Scottish football nosedived, it was often asked: how can little Scotland sustain nearly half as many professional clubs as England? The answer: by things getting a lot thinner at the bottom.
Take away The Conditional's earnings this year and current trainer David Bridgwater would be only 20 or so places higher in the British standings than the horse's former trainer, Martin Hassett, is in Ireland. For all that, there is no question that Bridgwater has been able to improve the horse by a considerable amount, culminating in a win at the Cheltenham Festival.
The Conditional (right) has improved dramatically since joining David Bridgwater
The Conditional (right) has improved dramatically since joining David Bridgwater
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
At the top and the bottom there is relative parity between Britain and Ireland in the training ranks. In general, though, I would consider a middleweight British trainer likely to be more capable than their Irish counterpart.
Trainer switches
All of the above can be used to make an informed decision on the most obvious application of ranking trainers: the horse that moves stables.
As has been discussed all the way through, it is not enough to compare the reputation of yard A with that of yard B. There was a good case study in this earlier in the jumps season.
Few would doubt that Warren Greatrex, who has won several Grade 1s including the Stayers' Hurdle, has greater standing than Sandy Thomson, who has spent the majority of his career as a permit holder.
Still, there was reason to be interested when Aloomomo made the move from Greatrex to Thomson. The latter is a trainer of chasers first and foremost, and has previous for rekindling those who have reached the end of the road at big yards. Greatrex is perhaps best known for his bumper horses and runs relatively few chasers (just 21 per cent of all his runners).
Aloomomo has revived to a reasonable degree for Thomson, recording his highest RPR for nearly four years when winning on the bit at Kelso in January. I would be tempted to back him again once he is freshened up, although it is not generally Thomson's way to have one hard-fit on their reappearance.
Having the knowledge is one thing, dealing with the dilemmas it might create is something that can only be learned from experience.
Keith's top tips for using trainers
1. Focus on the slightly smaller yards. Everyone knows about the habits, skills and foibles of the big trainers, or at least the bookies do. Getting a handle on the second-tier yards is the quickest way to get an edge.
2. Tread carefully with the cold list. As soon as you hear a trainer being mooted as out of form, look at their recent profile on the Racing Post site. Have the 'bad' runs actually been a bit more 'meh'? Were many of the horses beaten at short prices? If things look bad, watch some of the races. Horses struggling a long way out, or not finishing off races, can be a telltale sign of something amiss at home.
3. Always judge trainers in the context of the horses they receive. Some trainers perform alchemy with modestly bred horses, while some (especially in the big centres) probably should do a bit better with the relative bluebloods they are given.
4. Pay attention to the time of year. Andrew Mount covers this, too. Many stats angles start off as qualitative observations, so keep an eye out for who does well when.
5. Play the 'Sliding Doors' game. How would Mark Johnston have campaigned Gleneagles? What if Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti had swapped trainers before they raced in Britain? Whiling away a few idle moments on these hypotheticals can help with one's command of how different trainers go about things.
6. Do not back blind on a positive stable switch. You might have got away with this ten years ago, but savvy trainers know when they are expected to improve a horse and are increasingly inclined to take their time with new recruits. This is another respect in which punters can spot trainer habits.
Keith Melrose Q&A
What was your first bet?
Just after my 18th birthday I backed on Ollie Magern in the 2004 Hennessy.
What was your biggest win?
I rarely bet multiples so have never even threatened one of those life-changing bets. The closest I came would have been getting the Sandown Placepot up for a couple of quid the day Nathaniel won the Eclipse. With some of the winnings I bought a wingback chair for my living room and named it Cavalryman.
What was your most painful loser?
The first horse I had a share in was Joe Jo Star, who won the Swinton. The second was North South Divide, I was 22 and thought this ownership game was easy. I had what is still the biggest bet of my life on him first time up, but a young Ryan Powell made a pig's ear of it on the day and the horse got injured soon after.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
I picked up early on that the most deeply sceptical tend to make the best punters. It was probably best summed up by what Matt Taylor (pro punter and owner with Donald McCain) once said: just because a bluebottle's bigger than a fly doesn't make it an elephant.
Statistics guru Andrew Mount with some profitable trainer systems
Discovering which yards do well at a certain time of year is one angle of attack when it comes to trainer systems.
Nigel Twiston-Davies usually thrives in the autumn and his runners in October, since 2010, have won 123 of their 604 starts (20.4 per cent) for a profit of £108.58 to £1 level stakes (almost 18 per cent on turnover).
Supporting Venetia Williams-trained handicap chasers when the ground turns soft is a popular system, with 55 winners from 272 runners in November during the last ten seasons for a profit of £120.46.
Sandy Thomson is an excellent trainer who still goes under the radar and the peak winter period is when to side with his horses. Simply backing them all from the beginning of November until the end of February would have found 71 winners from 390 bets since 2010 (18.2 per cent) for a profit of £217.13 (55.7 per cent on turnover).
Breaking down trainer form by track and race type can also be revealing, with some yards excelling at their local courses.
Since the beginning of 2010, had we backed all of Donald McCain's runners in handicap hurdles at Bangor we would have found 43 winners from 216 bets (19.9 per cent) for a profit of £82.83. The strike-rate improves to 32.3 per cent (31 winners from 96 qualifiers) for those who were returning to the track within four weeks of a previous outing, with the profit boosted to £120.58. Fifteen of the beaten horses finished second, often at big prices.
On the Flat, siding with Tom Dascombe in Haydock handicaps has been a lucrative angle over the years, with 67 winners from 345 runners (19.4 per cent) for a profit of £115.00 to a £1 level stake at SP. Don't try to pick between them if he has multiple qualifiers in the same race. In May 2016, I opted for 6-1 shot Monsieur Glory over 50-1 outsider Caponova. You can guess the rest.
With less experienced horses, a trip to a local track is often part of the educational process. All 67 newcomers Clive Cox has sent to Newbury since 2010 have been beaten but those who ran well often proved to be future stars. Dark Power, runner-up at 16-1 on his juvenile debut in September 2016, won four times for Cox and landed a race worth more than £450,000 to the winner at Riyadh on February 29 this year. Kodi Bear hung away his chance when a close second in a 16-runner maiden back in May 2014 before going on to score four times in Group and Listed company.
Clive Cox (left) uses his local track Newbury as an educational process for his juveniles
Clive Cox (left) uses his local track Newbury as an educational process for his juveniles
Edward Whitaker
Colin Tizzard has yet to saddle a winner in junior bumpers (0-24) but that's hardly surprising given the chasing types he favours and his runners are usually worth putting in your tracker. His latest qualifier, Empreinte Reconce, was only fifth as the 10-11 favourite but has won three times since. Copperhead, who hacked up by 17 lengths in this season's Reynoldstown, was beaten by 42 lengths into seventh when making his debut in one of these races in late 2017.
Combining first-time headgear angles with specific trainers can lead to some profitable betting systems and one that has proved particularly lucrative of late is Paul Cole with his first-time-blinkered runners. Since 2010, he's 14-84 (16.7 per cent) under these conditions for a profit of £19.63, which is boosted to £40.65 (13 winners at 22.4 per cent) if we only back the juveniles and three-year-olds. He scored with four of the seven qualifiers last year at odds of 14-1, 7-1, 5-1 and 3-1.
1 of 1
UPDATED 1:36PM, MAR 27 2020
In the 364 days between his first and second Gold Cup triumph, Al Boum Photo spent a smidgen over 12 minutes, plus a few spins of the paddock, visible to the public. There were 155 days between Pinatubo's debut win and the Dewhurst, but there will be 203 between then and the 2,000 Guineas, should the latter take place as scheduled on May 2.
The point being made, with all the subtlety of a claw hammer, is that horses spend the overwhelming majority of their lives away from the public gaze. For most of the time, that means being in the care of their trainer.
Of course, there is barely a horseracing punter who does not pay some sort of attention to trainers. Whether that is your Uncle Phil who backs Mark Johnston runners blind, or the bookmakers who make the Nicky Henderson runner favourite for the maiden hurdle at Chepstow by default. But just because something is considered it does not mean it is given the weight it warrants.
For a significant number of punters, it is evident that trainer form is hardly considered beyond the championship table and the hot/cold list. To refer back to the example of the Chepstow maiden hurdle, without form to go on the first show of betting is determined by little else than looking at the yards of the runners and ranking them by reputation. Anything that forces the bookies to guess is good news for punters, so take a step back and formulate how we can take advantage.
While a stable's standing can be overplayed, its current form is often misinterpreted. A simple measure of strike-rate over a fortnight is flawed. The same, but with ran-to-form percentages, is viable but will still throw up plenty of false positives, especially over jumps.
It needs to be remembered that what we are doing is little more than looking at a tiny snapshot from a long string of figures. Statistics need to be used advisedly. Luckily Andrew Mount, one of the best in this regard, will be along shortly to guide us all.
Personal preference is to take a more qualitative approach. It is more work, but it is a related contingency to suggest it is therefore the best way to gain an edge.
The serious sports bettor will read the human side to inform their bets. Knowledge of who is temperamental, or mentally fragile, or who is off for their life in front of a home crowd is known to come in handy when looking at, say, tennis players or golfers.
Trainers, more than jockeys, provide racing's equivalent. The cliche is accurate, horses are not machines, but their trainers are human and their habits and attributes can be more easily read.
Of course, insiders will always know more about a certain yard than even the most diligent punter. But their viewpoint is not panoramic, nor objective. The dogs that barked for Shishkin were also in pretty good voice for Tombee Du Ciel (well-backed but well-beaten Summit Hurdle favourite on her sole start for the Henderson stable). Or imagine the confidence that would have been felt by some of those who backed Nathaniel at odds of 7-1 for his debut, only for him to run into Frankel.
Shishkin (right) lived up to the hype in the Supreme Novices' Hurdle
Shishkin (right) lived up to the hype in the Supreme Novices' Hurdle
Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
The punter who is immersed, rather than involved, does not often have it right off in maidens. For those who focus on the details of trainer form, the best edges come with much more experienced horses. Those who have priced-in habits that may not transfer to their new yard. Others that continually shape well for a stable with more than its fair share of weak finishers.
A lot of what is learned will be extremely specific. A trainer's regime might change next season when they employ a new assistant. The references made below are unlikely to be evergreen. They are used mostly to be illustrative of the general points to look out for when assessing horses relative to their yards.
Follow the money
It does not take an awful long time to figure out which yards are more likely to get stuck into one they fancy. Most stables will do this to an extent, like the Nathaniel (well supported into 3-1 after opening at 7-1) example above. Others, generally at the lower end, tend to make things more obvious.
There are a few telltale signs. The horse who goes off short for bumpers, then seems to be unfancied in novice hurdles before being backed once in handicaps. The trainer whose runners are always primed for a run at Ffos Las. When a horse has clear preferences but does not run such conditions until just the right time. And so on.
It also helps to know when the most informative money from a certain stable is put down. When Gordon Elliott was coming through the ranks and improving horses from other yards left, right and centre, those who were fancied to take off right away were generally backed early doors.
With such strictly controlled stakes the night before, most yards have become better at keeping a lid on things for longer. Nowadays, it makes sense to assume that the late money on Betfair is the most indicative. This money can even be missed by the SPs, so be prepared to watch the exchanges to find out what is really going on.
Habit-forming
It has become less obvious in recent years, but it used to be the case that you could make out the pecking order of Willie Mullins' novices simply from the races they ran in. His main RSA hope would run in the Flogas. Four of his six Supreme winners warmed up by running in the same race Asterion Forlonge won in February.
Many trainers are creatures of habit and have races they reliably target. While we all know about the Pipes and the Imperial Cup, this can be taken further to gain genuine insight. Paul Nicholls runs more good horses at his local track, Wincanton, than might otherwise be expected of a trainer who ends up with loads of rangy staying chasers. Kevin Ryan nearly always sends his good two-year-olds to York. Locality is often a strong clue.
There is also a broader sense to this, which might be called the Prescott Principle. Sir Mark Prescott’s modus operandi of starting off inexperienced horses over shorter trips before stepping them up to staying handicaps is the best-known example.
Trainers tend to have a style by which they bring along younger horses in the yard. Punters who are aware of trainers' individual methods can be the first to make judgements about horses that do not conform.
To use Prescott as an example, since 2008 he has had only nine winning two-year-old debutants in maidens. Their median peak RPR is 98, so they tend to wind up above-average. Most tellingly, the median SP was 9-4.
Environmental concerns
Suppose that 90 per cent of the time, what Charlie Hills and Kerry Lee do is much the same. How are the horses that emerge so different? Trainers are influenced by a number of factors, but the three most common are: the types of horse they receive; the people they learned from; and the situation of their training facilities.
When Harry Fry and Dan Skelton first took out their own licences, their styles were similar to their shared mentor, Paul Nicholls. Colin Tizzard, whose son Joe was stable jockey at Ditcheat and who receives similar sort of stock, also has something of a Nicholls-shaped yard.
Anyone who wants to judge how good a trainer is needs to have some awareness of the horses they are supplied with. Some trainers get excellent ammunition but land few blows. Others manage to regularly fashion silk purses from sows' ears. A good example pointed out to me some years ago is Cumbria trainer Maurice Barnes.
With the best will in the world, Barnes often gets horses not bred to win anything stronger than a maiden point. His strike-rate stands up remarkably well, so when he sent Knockoura, a point-winning relative of Scotsirish and Sayparee, over fences this winter I just about followed him blind (won two of four starts, finishing second in another at 50-1).
Best of British
A young horse who arrives in Britain from France will usually be expected to improve by a large amount, stones in many cases. One who comes from Ireland would generally be treated with much more caution, but in a lot of cases that is not justified.
The received wisdom seems to be that plenty of good trainers in Ireland are crowded out by the powerhouse operations: Mullins and Elliott over jumps, Aidan O'Brien on the Flat.
There is of course some truth to this, but Mullins' strike-rate over jumps in Ireland (27 per cent, 20 per cent in Pattern races) relative to Britain (15 per cent) is attributable to more than just him competing in the most select races when on his travels.
It is a numbers game, really. Britain is much bigger than Ireland, well over ten times in population terms. Yet the Racing Post site has 722 trainers in the standings for the 2019-20 British jumps season, with 484 in Ireland.
It is somewhat similar to the difference between the English and Scottish football leagues. Even before Scottish football nosedived, it was often asked: how can little Scotland sustain nearly half as many professional clubs as England? The answer: by things getting a lot thinner at the bottom.
Take away The Conditional's earnings this year and current trainer David Bridgwater would be only 20 or so places higher in the British standings than the horse's former trainer, Martin Hassett, is in Ireland. For all that, there is no question that Bridgwater has been able to improve the horse by a considerable amount, culminating in a win at the Cheltenham Festival.
The Conditional (right) has improved dramatically since joining David Bridgwater
The Conditional (right) has improved dramatically since joining David Bridgwater
Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
At the top and the bottom there is relative parity between Britain and Ireland in the training ranks. In general, though, I would consider a middleweight British trainer likely to be more capable than their Irish counterpart.
Trainer switches
All of the above can be used to make an informed decision on the most obvious application of ranking trainers: the horse that moves stables.
As has been discussed all the way through, it is not enough to compare the reputation of yard A with that of yard B. There was a good case study in this earlier in the jumps season.
Few would doubt that Warren Greatrex, who has won several Grade 1s including the Stayers' Hurdle, has greater standing than Sandy Thomson, who has spent the majority of his career as a permit holder.
Still, there was reason to be interested when Aloomomo made the move from Greatrex to Thomson. The latter is a trainer of chasers first and foremost, and has previous for rekindling those who have reached the end of the road at big yards. Greatrex is perhaps best known for his bumper horses and runs relatively few chasers (just 21 per cent of all his runners).
Aloomomo has revived to a reasonable degree for Thomson, recording his highest RPR for nearly four years when winning on the bit at Kelso in January. I would be tempted to back him again once he is freshened up, although it is not generally Thomson's way to have one hard-fit on their reappearance.
Having the knowledge is one thing, dealing with the dilemmas it might create is something that can only be learned from experience.
Keith's top tips for using trainers
1. Focus on the slightly smaller yards. Everyone knows about the habits, skills and foibles of the big trainers, or at least the bookies do. Getting a handle on the second-tier yards is the quickest way to get an edge.
2. Tread carefully with the cold list. As soon as you hear a trainer being mooted as out of form, look at their recent profile on the Racing Post site. Have the 'bad' runs actually been a bit more 'meh'? Were many of the horses beaten at short prices? If things look bad, watch some of the races. Horses struggling a long way out, or not finishing off races, can be a telltale sign of something amiss at home.
3. Always judge trainers in the context of the horses they receive. Some trainers perform alchemy with modestly bred horses, while some (especially in the big centres) probably should do a bit better with the relative bluebloods they are given.
4. Pay attention to the time of year. Andrew Mount covers this, too. Many stats angles start off as qualitative observations, so keep an eye out for who does well when.
5. Play the 'Sliding Doors' game. How would Mark Johnston have campaigned Gleneagles? What if Bobs Worth and Silviniaco Conti had swapped trainers before they raced in Britain? Whiling away a few idle moments on these hypotheticals can help with one's command of how different trainers go about things.
6. Do not back blind on a positive stable switch. You might have got away with this ten years ago, but savvy trainers know when they are expected to improve a horse and are increasingly inclined to take their time with new recruits. This is another respect in which punters can spot trainer habits.
Keith Melrose Q&A
What was your first bet?
Just after my 18th birthday I backed on Ollie Magern in the 2004 Hennessy.
What was your biggest win?
I rarely bet multiples so have never even threatened one of those life-changing bets. The closest I came would have been getting the Sandown Placepot up for a couple of quid the day Nathaniel won the Eclipse. With some of the winnings I bought a wingback chair for my living room and named it Cavalryman.
What was your most painful loser?
The first horse I had a share in was Joe Jo Star, who won the Swinton. The second was North South Divide, I was 22 and thought this ownership game was easy. I had what is still the biggest bet of my life on him first time up, but a young Ryan Powell made a pig's ear of it on the day and the horse got injured soon after.
What's the best punting advice you've ever received?
I picked up early on that the most deeply sceptical tend to make the best punters. It was probably best summed up by what Matt Taylor (pro punter and owner with Donald McCain) once said: just because a bluebottle's bigger than a fly doesn't make it an elephant.
Statistics guru Andrew Mount with some profitable trainer systems
Discovering which yards do well at a certain time of year is one angle of attack when it comes to trainer systems.
Nigel Twiston-Davies usually thrives in the autumn and his runners in October, since 2010, have won 123 of their 604 starts (20.4 per cent) for a profit of £108.58 to £1 level stakes (almost 18 per cent on turnover).
Supporting Venetia Williams-trained handicap chasers when the ground turns soft is a popular system, with 55 winners from 272 runners in November during the last ten seasons for a profit of £120.46.
Sandy Thomson is an excellent trainer who still goes under the radar and the peak winter period is when to side with his horses. Simply backing them all from the beginning of November until the end of February would have found 71 winners from 390 bets since 2010 (18.2 per cent) for a profit of £217.13 (55.7 per cent on turnover).
Breaking down trainer form by track and race type can also be revealing, with some yards excelling at their local courses.
Since the beginning of 2010, had we backed all of Donald McCain's runners in handicap hurdles at Bangor we would have found 43 winners from 216 bets (19.9 per cent) for a profit of £82.83. The strike-rate improves to 32.3 per cent (31 winners from 96 qualifiers) for those who were returning to the track within four weeks of a previous outing, with the profit boosted to £120.58. Fifteen of the beaten horses finished second, often at big prices.
On the Flat, siding with Tom Dascombe in Haydock handicaps has been a lucrative angle over the years, with 67 winners from 345 runners (19.4 per cent) for a profit of £115.00 to a £1 level stake at SP. Don't try to pick between them if he has multiple qualifiers in the same race. In May 2016, I opted for 6-1 shot Monsieur Glory over 50-1 outsider Caponova. You can guess the rest.
With less experienced horses, a trip to a local track is often part of the educational process. All 67 newcomers Clive Cox has sent to Newbury since 2010 have been beaten but those who ran well often proved to be future stars. Dark Power, runner-up at 16-1 on his juvenile debut in September 2016, won four times for Cox and landed a race worth more than £450,000 to the winner at Riyadh on February 29 this year. Kodi Bear hung away his chance when a close second in a 16-runner maiden back in May 2014 before going on to score four times in Group and Listed company.
Clive Cox (left) uses his local track Newbury as an educational process for his juveniles
Clive Cox (left) uses his local track Newbury as an educational process for his juveniles
Edward Whitaker
Colin Tizzard has yet to saddle a winner in junior bumpers (0-24) but that's hardly surprising given the chasing types he favours and his runners are usually worth putting in your tracker. His latest qualifier, Empreinte Reconce, was only fifth as the 10-11 favourite but has won three times since. Copperhead, who hacked up by 17 lengths in this season's Reynoldstown, was beaten by 42 lengths into seventh when making his debut in one of these races in late 2017.
Combining first-time headgear angles with specific trainers can lead to some profitable betting systems and one that has proved particularly lucrative of late is Paul Cole with his first-time-blinkered runners. Since 2010, he's 14-84 (16.7 per cent) under these conditions for a profit of £19.63, which is boosted to £40.65 (13 winners at 22.4 per cent) if we only back the juveniles and three-year-olds. He scored with four of the seven qualifiers last year at odds of 14-1, 7-1, 5-1 and 3-1.
thank you very much pal - i'm off back into the garden once I@ve printed all this off cheers
cheers
This pandemic will be over before you have read that lot raz
Thank-you 'Delta'. We've 3 extra weeks to digest your post.
foxy - I'm sat in the garden, glorious sunshine wading through these write-ups - a mug of tea & a packet of ginger nut biscuits also helps as do my 2 border terriers 
Delta who wrote the article about being a pro punter ?
raz'
when ya finished reading them he're some interviews to watch too
https://www.starsportsbet.co.uk/betting-people/
when ya finished reading them he're some interviews to watch too
https://www.starsportsbet.co.uk/betting-people/
thesportinglife
Betting Masterclasses THE PROFESSIONAL PUNTER
Betting for a living: a pro punter's insight on how to make gambling pay
^ all it says
Betting Masterclasses THE PROFESSIONAL PUNTER
Betting for a living: a pro punter's insight on how to make gambling pay
^ all it says
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539