|
Racing Articles/Notes
1. Speed
Ratings versus standard collateral form reading
(28/03/2009)
Author: Matt Bisogno:
Horse Racing Systems
– Horse racing systems, trialled ‘live’ in front of
readers. No fluff, just straightforward ‘it works or
it doesn’t’ information.
Horse racing as a sport has thrived in this country for over 900 years. It is
said that the Crusaders returned from their battles with lightning swift Arab
horses as early as the 12th Century. Known as the Sport of Kings, it was the
likes of Lord Derby (after whom the principle race in the UK flat calendar is
named) and his moneyed cohorts who exclusively enjoyed the thrills of
ownership for most of the intervening years.
Indeed, the colours of Lord Derby are still carried with honour, most recently
by the incomparable race mare, Ouija Board.
Across ‘The Pond’, in America, it was also the British settlers who instigated
horse racing as a sport. The first recorded US track was built at Long Island,
on the East Coast, in 1665.
Both sides of the big watery divide, the single common
element that increased the popularity of horse racing
was that the outcome could not be predicted with any
certainty and of course the consequence of an uncertain outcome is, and always has been,
a wager.
Gambling continues to pay the way for horse racing
everywhere, though for how much longer so much poor
sport can sustain itself (especially here in UK) is in
some doubt.
The point of this rather ragged and incomplete history lesson, is to emphasise the fundamental role of betting in the sport.
Betting makes for winners and losers, and – in the case of horse racing – the
result is binary. You either have a ‘1’, and a win and a payout. Or you have a
‘0’, and not a win, and a loss.
This risk against reward scenario has been embraced since time immemorial as an
opportunity to make money.
Historically, when communications such as we have in this digital age were
less plausible than putting a man into space, foul play abounded, and scams
were commonplace.
It was a brave (or foolhardy) man who struck, or accepted, a wager. Of course,
this ‘glorious uncertainty’ deterred neither the aristocracy nor the peasant
classes from wading in with their size nine buskins.
In more recent times, with the formation of various governing bodies, from
local to international levels, and the appointment of senior on-course
judiciary, the scope for skulduggery has reduced manifold (despite what the
conspiracy theorists and terminal losers will try to peddle to you if they
think you offer even half an ear in their direction).
This makes the practice of trying to find winners more scientific and less
susceptible to the unknown and underhand machinations of a preconceived plot.
With the possibility that science or at least artistic study could identify
the most likely winner of a race among thoroughbreds, came the students to
whose dedication to methodical analysis we owe everything we know today about
what is commonly called ‘form’.
The interesting aspect of this article is the
disparate evolution of horse racing form analysis that has developed on the
two respective sides of the Atlantic.
The concept of collateral form – that is, A beat B by 5 lengths, and B beat C
by 3 lengths; therefore, A should beat C by 8 lengths – is almost utterly
alien Stateside, yet it is the staple here in Britain and Ireland.
By the same token, the notions of pace, class and speed – which underpin US
form study – are still the poor relations of collateral form in our verdant
lands.
In the course of some of the following details, I hope to introduce you to some
of the key principles of US race analysis, and illustrate how prudent
employment of these ideas can lead to real value in one’s betting here in the
UK.
Furthermore, if a methodology can identify the horse best suited to the
prevailing conditions, or the fastest horse and, therefore, one to bet, it
follows that the same methodologies can identify slow horses, or horses
patently unsuited by the race makeup and, consequently, those to oppose.
In this day and age, this affords both bettor and bookmaker opportunities, and
it is in both of these spheres that you should seek to take advantage of this
window of opportunity.
Although it is sometimes difficult to take the less well-trodden route, it is
unequivocally there that the path to financial gain lies.
UK Form And Its Shortcomings
Under the reign of Queen Anne, during the period 1702-1714, horse races
involving several horses on which spectators placed bets took over from match
racing and horse racing became a professional sport, with racecourses founded
throughout England, including the track at Ascot, founded by Queen Anne
herself, in 1711.
In 1750 in the Star and Garter pub, Pall Mall, the first meeting of what was
to become The Jockey Club was convened.
Their initial remit was to ensure that races run on Newmarket Heath were done
so fairly, and the statutes they instated were soon embraced by many of the
racecourses operating in Britain at that time.
The estimable daily racing newspaper, The Sporting Life, was first published
in 1859, and lived until the ripe old age of 139, before being amalgamated
with the Racing Post in 1998.
The reason for this selective and potted history lesson is that between the
robust regimen of the Jockey Club, and the widespread dissemination of
information propagated by the Sporting Life, horse race wagering became much
more common practice from the middle of the 19th century.
Wagering had been a part of horse racing since the middle 1600’s, but it
gained a new aura of trust and respectability with the publication of both
rules of racing and official form and results.
At some point, and I can’t find any evidence of when, some clever soul must
have realised that if all horses raced as equals (i.e. with just a saddle and
a jockey on their back), some of them would prevail too regularly to sustain
betting.
The reason for my contention is that horse racing as a sport would surely
honour the fastest horse, just as athletics as a sport honours the fastest
athlete, rather than try to find ways to give slower and less capable horses a
chance to win.
However, in order to make betting more interesting – and therefore more
popular, and in turn therefore to generate more revenue – measures were needed
to even out the theoretical chances of all horses in a race.
Thus ‘handicap’ races were conceived (anybody know when?), where the best
horse is allotted the most weight to carry, in order to attempt to level out
its chance against the other contenders.
This weight measurement became the pre-eminent unit of form analysis in
British horse racing. Weight equals lengths, and lengths beaten – or in front
of – another animal is still taken as a fairly literal interpretation of the
respective merits of the beasts in any given contest.
To my mind, this is patently ridiculous. There are so many basic imponderables
ignored by a study predicated on this concept.
Elements such as the pace of the race: that is, how fast was the race run? Was
the race run at a similar speed throughout? Or was it stop/start? Did the
winner lead off slowly and ‘steal’ the win? Or did it come from far back,
outstaying tired runners who’d shot their bolts?
How can you infer that in weight and lengths?
Elements such as the going, the distance and course: what were the underfoot
conditions? And when they recorded the going as good to soft at Cheltenham and
horses were breaking track records, did they think we didn’t know they were
lying? (For God’s sake, let’s get out of the dark ages and use a common
scientific turf moisture measuring tool, like the penetrometer or some such!).
The distance of the race: yes, it was a mile on the race card. But did you
know they’d moved the rail in ten feet? Around a two furlong turn, that makes
a significant difference to the overall distance.
The course: A beat B by five lengths around the turning 5 furlongs at Chester.
Therefore, he should win by the same margin on the straight course at Sandown
with all other things equal, right? Wrong.
What if B is a huge tank of a horse? He’d have no chance of finding any kind
of rhythm on the bullring like that at Chester. Much better suited to a stiff
galloping dash like that at Esher’s finest. I’d take B to put five lengths
into A on a straight track.
Of course, you will rightly identify that most savoir faire students of form
will factor in a number of these elements and, indeed, this information is now
much more freely available thanks to the wonders of the information age.
Nevertheless, UK racing still has at its heart, lengths beaten and weight
carried.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that weight actually makes very little
difference to a horse’s performance. Sure, if you put an extra two stone on
its back, then that has a bearing. But if you put the equivalent of a bag of
sugar or two on the lumbar of a ton of rippling equine sinew, do you seriously
think that will do the trick?
The fact is that horses going up a few pounds win far more often than those
going down a few pounds.
In Nick Mordin’s excellent “Betting For A Living”, he did a survey of 222
races over a three year period, where in each case two horses who had
previously finished close together (within two lengths) were going head to
head again.
When the weight differential remained the same, or the loser from the first
meeting carried more weight, the loser lost again 56 times out of 96 – or 58%.
When the weight differential allowed the loser to carry less weight, it lost
73 times out of 126. Or 58%.
In other words, an average weight pull of 2.45lbs made not one iota of
difference overall to the chances of the losing horse from the first time
reversing the placings next time they met. But according to weights and lengths, that weight turnaround should allow the
tables to be turned on each occasion (distance depending).
Looking at this from another perspective and, irrespective of collateral form
between runners or mutual previous adversaries, there is a distinct pattern in
handicaps. Take a look at the following data from a recent three year study:
Weight Rank - Descending (handicaps)
CATEGORY WINS RUNS STRIKE% LSP LSP% VSP%
1st (top weight) 1354 10842 12.49 -1721.74 -15.88 -8.39
2nd 954 8291 11.51 -1630.81 -19.67 -11.58
3rd 860 8235 10.44 -1577.51 -19.16 -15.08
4th 849 8324 10.20 -1979.05 -23.78 -11.32
5th 770 8104 9.50 -1438.82 -17.75 -12.85
6th 710 8138 8.72 -1692.27 -20.79 -13.90
7th 556 7641 7.28 -1960.25 -25.65 -21.59
8th 518 7239 7.16 -1777.71 -24.56 -18.17
9th 396 6461 6.13 -2102.38 -32.54 -22.22
10th+ 1187 23035 5.15 -6503.10 -28.23 -21.29
There are two points to make here:
There is an exact linear relationship between a horse’s weight position in the
handicap hierarchy, and its win strike rate.
Top weights win just about once in every eight handicaps, whereas those tenth
or lower win only around one in twenty.
Losses are limited the most when solely backing top weighted horses in
handicaps, with about 84p returned for every £1 wagered at SP. With horses at
the tail of the handicap, you’d lose pushing 30p in every pound!
In summary, I’ve tried to highlight some of the shortcomings in
simply taking the collateral form methodology as a means to identify the most
likely winner of a horse race. I totally accept the accusation that I may have
exaggerated the import of weight and lengths in
relation to some of the more sophisticated readers’
approaches, however I still believe that the majority of ‘skim’ form students (i.e. those
who look beyond the 1’s, 2’s and 0’s to the left of a horse’s name, but not
much beyond them) perceive distance beaten and weight carried as informative
determinants in their quest to solve the puzzle.
We’ve seen here that small deviations in weight actually have a very limited
likelihood of instigating a form reversal and, in the case of handicap races,
a highly weighted horse should – on balance – be seen as a positive factor.
Can it not be true that a horse in winning form,
carries the extra weight allotted and continues a
winning run simply because the animal is 'in form',
i.e fit and well, and it only then starts to lose and
run less well, not because the weight has an effect
but it simply turns out of form? The majority of
horses cannot hold their top winning form forever,
certainly the low grade runners.
Using Speed To Assess A Horse’s Chance
Let me begin this piece by asking a (loaded) question:
“If you were to place a bet on the likely winner of a 100m race, would you bet
the fastest man in the field or the man who won his last two races against
inferior opposition?”
I hope that you answered “the fastest man” and, if you didn’t, I hope that by
the end of this, you will be converted.
Having said that, it’s not always the case that the fastest man will win.
Although in 100m races, this is typically true, sometimes athletes fluff the
start and have too much catching up to do.
In races of 1,500m or more, there may be a tactical situation where the
fastest man loses his speed advantage over the full distance, and is usurped
by the man (or woman) with the best finishing kick.
As it is true for track athletes, so it is also true for cyclists, auto
racers, rowers, and horses.
Time waits for no man (or beast). The evidence of the clock is
incontrovertible.
However, while the time a horse records in winning a race may be unarguable,
the elements that conspired to that win – the jockey, the pace in the race,
the going, the wind speed and direction, the track constitution, and whether
the ground staff moved the running rails – are all open to interpretation.
This makes the ‘science’ of speed assessment an inexact one, and it is
precisely this inexactitude that makes for potential profit.
In the US speed guru Andy Beyer’s seminal work, “Picking Winners”, he espouses
the virtues of using the evidence of the stopwatch to find winners. In his
foreword in that book, Beyer writes,
“Surely it doesn’t require much imagination to conclude that races will often
be won by the fastest horse. Yet in 1975, this idea was considered heterodox,
even preposterous. Horseplayers believed in class, not speed, and experts
would often pose a hypothetical question like this one: A $10,000 [claiming
value] horse runs six furlongs in 1:11.0. A $20,000 horse runs the same six
furlongs in 1:11.6. Now they are matched against each other, who will win? The
overwhelming majority of people involved in American racing would have
answered without hesitation that the $20,000 animal’s superior class would
enable him to prevail. Even Tom Ainslie, the most astute and literate author
of handicapping books, espoused the supreme importance of class.
Of course, there were in America some bettors who recognised the importance of
speed and profited handsomely by betting the $10,000 horse who could run
faster than his $20,000 rival”.
Now, personally, I don’t think that in this example, where there are only
three-fifths of a second between the two runners, that it is necessarily the
case that the fastest horse would win, because that time difference would
equate to only four lengths on a traditional interpretation of times (see
below). And that sort of difference could easily be countered by a troubled
passage or a missed beat at the start.
However, the more likely winner, would unquestionably
be the faster horse. So the bet would have to be on
the faster horse and in this case it would likely be a
bigger price than its $20,000 rival.
What was true in America in 1975 is still true today in the UK for many racing
punters. A formerly smart handicapper dropping to claiming company is often
assumed to be a good thing, even though the numbers may indicate he is by no
means the fastest horse.
The stats for this are instructive.
If you had bet £1 on every horse running in a claimer over the last five
years, that had had its previous run in a handicap, you’d have lost a whopping
£1618.08.
Even if you limited those runners to horses who appeared in the first three in
the betting, you’d still have lost an eye watering £192.08.
Although class can help as an indicator of form, speed is a more quantifiable measure.
Author: Matt Bisogno:
Horse Racing Systems
– Horse racing systems, trialled ‘live’ in front
of readers. No fluff, just straightforward ‘it works
or it doesn’t’ information.
Top
Back to Racing Articles
|
