Alas, no selections again today.

Paul’s approach is - quite rightly - that if he can’t find a bet, he won’t nominate one.

It’s this selective nature that has him top of the league. Hopefully, we’ll get some action tomorrow.

By the way, in case you’re wondering how the Racing Systems Revolution guide is doing, it had an interesting first day yesterday, and I’ll provide a two day report on progress after today’s racing (or, more likely, in tomorrow’s bulletin).

Matt

p.s. Don’t forget to sign up for the Fantasy Footy at http://www.premierleague.com/splash/fantasy/fantasy.html

League code: 533724-97750

Ah, Glorious Goodwood, dear reader. One of the great festivals in the racing calendars and one which, for the first time, I will be attending (on Friday).

I’m very much looking forward to that, but between now and then, we need to earn some bunce!

To help with this particular quest, I’ve been playing around with the draw again (strong high bias on the round course), and I’ve created an interesting little system.

You can see it on the ‘Free Systems’ page (click the link at the top of this page, next to ‘blog’).

My placepot fancies today are:

2.15 Zero Tolerance, Fort Churchill, Peruvian Prince (I might be looking at the quadpot after this!)
2.50 Aqaleem (strongly fancied today)
3.25 Asset, Dubai’s Touch, Mutawaajid (strong e/w fancy)
4.00 Spirit of Sharjah (go Julia!!), Starlit Sands
4.35 Strategic Mount, Go Solo, Tilt, Cape Secret
5.05 Shallal (fancied though lots of unexposed nags), Royalist

144 x 25p = £36. See you at the payout queue!

Today’s lays are:
Goodwood 4.35 Samurai Way
Beverley 4.50 Revue Princess

Finally, on the horse racing front, I’ve had a number of requests for the standard times and speed ratings spreadie that I use to calculate my numbers. In order to most expediently service these requests, I’ve put them up in cyberspace.

Please bear in mind that the standard times belong to Nick Mordin’s team at nickmordin.com.

Times: www.nag-nag-nag.co.uk/speed/standard_times.txt

Spreadsheet (Excel): www.nag-nag-nag.co.uk/speed/070718.xls

Now then…..

It may or may not have escaped your attention that in the very near future, we shall be graced by the regular sight of 22 men kicking a painted pigskin towards a couple of white rectangles, in front of multiple thousands of partisan apes, all arbitrated by short-sighted drama queens.

Yes, dear readers, the football season is shortly upon us once more, and in this week of rejoicing, this is cause for yet one more ‘Hallelujah’!

To get you in the mood, and to create some cross-reader bonhomie, I thought that I’d set up a Fantasy Football League (FFL). I’m sure you all know the premise: pick a squad; score points for goals, assists, clean sheets, etc; take the p155 out of your poorly performing mates; and try to win a prize.

The league I use is a free one (and in my opinion the best one), so it will cost you nothing to enter. There are cash prizes put up by Barclaycard and Budweiser, the joint sponsors.

And I will put up some racing related prizes as well, just as soon as I’ve worked out what they are.

I’m conscious that many of us get squillions of FFL invites each season, and the other great thing about this site is that you can enter the same team in multiple different leagues. So, for instance, my team will be competing in my Saturday football side (go Southgate County 5th XI!!), my old work league (go RBS techies!), and of course in the Nag3 Superleague.

Enough bluster from me - get over to http://www.premierleague.com/splash/fantasy/fantasy.html

and get signed up. Once you’ve chosen your team which will be entered of course into the overall competition, select the ‘Leagues’ button from the menu on the right hand side, and - where it says ‘Join A Private League’, enter this code:

533724-97750

(If you already have a team registered with PremierLeague.com, you simply do the ‘Leagues’, ‘Join A Private League’, enter code bit - easy as that).

The more the merrier, so get your mates to sign up as well, and then you can get beer / bragging rights out of them (or they can get them off you!).

I warn you, I’m a demon FFL player, so expect to royally whooped by the King of FFL!! ;o)

Paul’s Each Way Selections, if there are any, will appear here later.

Get signed up for the footy now!!!
Matt

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 this country, there are a number of ratings services who increasingly rely on the evidence of the clock, in conjunction with other imponderables, to identify the likeliest winner in a given line-up. The most obvious one is Timeform, and there are numerous others.

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.

What was true in America in 1975 is still true today here 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 (as we’ll discover another day), speed is a more quantifiable measure.

So how does one actually go about calculating speed ratings? It is obvious to even the newest of newbies that it is not simply a case of clocking the time for a race. This would make no account of the numerous variables already touched upon, particularly track constitution and going.

So, in order to factor some of these elements into the calculations, and to create a degree of uniformity, we need some reference data.

Firstly, we need a set of ‘standard times’. A standard time is simply a constant approximation of the time a horse would take to cover the race distance for a particular class of race at a particular track, usually whilst carrying a specific weight. From there, the individual race times on a given day can be derived, and a ‘track variant’, or going allowance, can be calculated.

Although this may sound complicated, it really isn’t. I’ve set up a little Excel spreadsheet for the four all weather tracks that enables me to calculate the ratings for the race winners on a given day in around ten minutes.

The number crunching to manually enter all the data into another spreadsheet takes me a little longer, but the actual calculation part is simple and broadly automated.

If any reader is interested in the spreadsheet template and my set of standard times, which I got from speed guru, Nick Mordin, please let me know and I’d be happy to share them.

So, the process for working out the speed figures is as follows:

1. Enter the distance and race class for each race on the card
2. Enter the actual times the winners recorded
3. Calculate the track variant
4. Work out the ratings for the beaten horses

The first part is simple, especially using my spreadie.

Point two is equally straightforward.

Thereafter, life gets a bit more interesting. Lest you think that everyone who does this will get the same results, and therefore the value is diluted, let me disabuse you of that notion.

The track variant is interpretable. What I tend to do, in line with the Nick Mordin approach outlined in his book ‘Betting For A Living’ and stated in full in the excellent ‘Mordin on Time’, is throw out the fastest and slowest (after applying the class allowance elements) run races.

I then look at the subset of data I have left to see if there are any further outliers (i.e. race times that are obviously out of kilter with the remainder).

For all of the remaining race times, I calculate the average, based on the adjusted time difference per mile. This then becomes my track variant.

It really is a lot easier to do than to explain, but if you’re interested in learning more, I heartily recommend you get a copy of Mordin on Time. (It’s available on Amazon for about eight quid).

To calculate the ratings for the beaten horses, you simply divide the distance beaten by the race distance in miles, and subtract that from the winner’s rating. So for instance, a horse beaten two lengths in a one mile race, would get a rating of two less than the winner (2 divided by 1 = 2). Likewise, a horse beaten three lengths in a six furlong (or 0.75 mile) race, would get a rating of four less than the winner (3 divided by 0.75 = 4).

I need to clarify two points here:

Firstly, the numbers create a relationship between time and distance beaten, by assuming that one point on the ratings equates to one length beaten over a mile or, in time terms one fifth of a second per mile. So, in theory, a horse beaten a length over a mile has run to the same relative mark against the race winner as a horse beaten two lengths over two miles. (I hope this makes sense).

Seco
ndly, you’ll notice I’ve made only passing reference to weight in my assessments. This is because my experience, and that of much better qualified judges, suggests that the influence of weight is overrated, especially on all weather tracks, where I focus my attentions.

It’s true that a horse due to carry a stone more weight may struggle, but a pound or two here or there is rarely as important as the horse’s winning / trying attitude.

By following this simple rating procedure, you can quickly build up a database of numbers against horses. And you will find that sometimes a horse will surprise you with a very high rating. Do not be afraid to accept that a horse can improve significantly for a change of surface, or if unexposed on the surface. Be more sceptical if the horse is more experienced and suddenly throws in a freakishly fast time: the chances of a repeat are slim.

I mentioned recently that Les Fazzani ran very quickly in what seemed a fairly ‘run of the mill’ race at Kempton. She came out and won again next time by four lengths at odds of 5/1. (I didn’t back her because the race was on turf but, had she been running again at Kempton, I’d have pulled the boots on! And she’d surely have won).

It’s this type of information that is not necessarily available to the public, and that is fairly objective (remember, there is some interpretation in the numbers) that can be so powerful.

Before work commitments precluded me spending the time on them, I kept ratings for Lingfield, Southwell and Wolverhampton for four winters in a row. I made money each and every year.

I plan to reinstate the ratings for this winter, which is why I have been dusting off the old spreadies, and why I’ve acquired some up-to-date standard times.

I’m very much looking forward to a profitable winter season!

[Note, the reason I only look at speed ratings for all weather tracks is because generally there are many less variables to deal with. For instance, the running rails are never moved and therefore the distance is always as advertised; the going changes much less markedly than on turf tracks; horses who act at a track once are pretty likely to replicate that; horses who don’t are equally likely to replicate their failure; and there is a good chance that horses will continue to run consistently at the same location, due to the number of fixtures from October to March.]

One important note of caution which is worth repeating: as I mentioned at the top of this piece, a fast horse can only run a fast time in a fast run race. I appreciate that may be a statement of glaring obviousness.

But remember that small field races, or races where there is no obvious front runner(s), or races over a longer trip (a ‘route’ as they say, Stateside), often become tactical and any advantage a fast horse has can be nullified unless he also possesses a turn of foot.

This brings us nicely onto pace as a means of identifying race winners, which I will discuss in more detail next time…

Matt

There are no Winning Tips E/W selections today.

Good morning, dear reader, and once again welcome to the world of work. But fear not. For these five days of drudgery will surely fly by with the help of Nag3’s bumper bag of bonus goodies.

This week, you’ll not only be getting the Laying System selections (as I attempt to extricate myself from a short term but very public hole), but also Paul Ruffy will be sharing his each way winners.

Paul’s service has been top of the long term tipping charts on Racing Index for as long as I can remember, so I’m delighted to be able to share some of his wisdom with you.

The third prong to our tipping / laying / trading attack this week comes from a trial of the latest ’system to end all systems’ from the conveyor belt of Steven Lee Jones, the so called ‘Racing Systems Revolution’ (hereafter known as RSR).

As if that wasn’t enough to feed even the hungriest of systemite mouths, I’ll also be bringing you more of my own thoughts on the tools and techniques the Yanks use to find winners, and how we can perhaps add them to our own analysis armoury.

All this, and its Glorious Goodwood week! I’ll actually be at Goodwood on Friday, so if you see me say hello

But before then, there will be plenty of action on the blog, starting here with a quick preview of RSR.

The sales bluster barks:

“My fellow Betfair gamblers, welcome to the land of hypocrisy. Driven by greedy ‘insiders’, self-serving tipsters, and self-appointed ‘experts’.”

If that isn’t the most hypocritical statement I’ve ever read, I’m struggling to think of a bigger contender. I mean, its so bad, you almost hope it’s tongue in cheek..!

The man who releases a product every fortnight, and clearly thinks you’re stupid, goes on to say, “Every single system they have sold you has been to harm YOU, to keep you down, out of the inner 1%.”

Jones is frequently the ‘they’ in question. Ahem.

For all that I despise this man’s sales copy as lazy, conspiratorial, self-righteous bull5h1t, the product itself is a bit different from Jones’ usual ’systems’, inasmuch as there appears to be a much sounder principle at play.

Although the guide is short at just 24 pages, it is also accompanied by the regular ‘How To Use Betfair’ manual that supports all of Jones’ products. So if you’re new to betfair (where have you been hiding?!), you can learn the fundamentals pretty quickly.

The guide is a ‘rush job’, with numerous typo’s and spelling mistakes.

The testimonials say that the triallists (the same three who testified for Laying Seven and Lay Maestro curiously enough. Bizarre coincidence? Erm, no…) have been looking at the product for a week, and yet the examples in the guide are from 26th July, so that is not really possible.

And yet… despite my desire to poohpooh this with conviction… I actually like the idea that he’s trying to put forward… I believe it may have merit.

I can’t help but not want to give a Jones system a positive review, and time will tell on that score, but I am as interested as you may be to find out how this performs under test.

So, how does RSR work?

Well, as ever, I can’t give the whole plot away or you won’t go to the movie… but in essence, the idea is to pick certain fancied runners which, based on supporting evidence, have a decent chance of being overbet.

The consequence of this for us is that we can trade in and out on a horse. That is, we can identify a horse we believe will receive market support, back it early in the support cycle, and then lay it back shortly before the race, to lock in a profit.

Simple concept and one that we see time and again every day. The key question then becomes, “Are the selection criteria identifying the right ’steamer’ animals?”.
Well, obviously, at this stage I don’t know the answer to that. But over the course of the next four days, I intend to put it to the test.

I could of course identify every qualifier at every meeting but, to be honest, that would too time consuming. (I need to eat, and go to the bathroom from time to time, dear reader!)

Indeed, one more pearl from RSR is that the user should not be greedy, and should only seek to trade perhaps two or three times a day.

Because of the nature of the system, and the activity required in the runup to the race, it’s not straightforward for me to nominate potential selections in advance, as there may not be sufficient liquidity on certain horses.

However, probable contenders today come from a subset of this list:
- Zippi Jazzman (Wolves)
- Generous Thought (Windsor)
- Effigy (Windsor)
- Foreign Rhythm (Windsor)
- Sonning Star (Windsor)
- Too Posh To Share (Uttox)
- The Honourable Lady (Uttox)
- Sonic Anthem (Uttox)
- Farington Lodge (Uttox)
- Seattle Robber (Uttox)
- Alabama Spirit (Yarm)
- Rough Rock (Yarm)
- Rosy Alexander (Yarm)

Due to other commitments this evening (yes, I do have a social life!), I will likely only track the afternoon runners at Yarmouth and Wolverhampton, but that should be ample to get a feel for the approach. I may also get the early races at Windsor and Uttoxeter, but no promises on that score.

Paul’s each way tips will be available between 12 and 1pm, so I’ll pass those on directly nearer the time.

My lay today is Rough Rock in the 3.00 at Yarmouth. He is short enough at odds on and, despite being dropped in a weak race, may not have the resolution to see it through.

Later today, I also hope to bring you the third part of the US Form series, looking at the use of speed assessments.

Finally, you’ll notice just below the title of this post an opportunity to share the blog content with any friends or colleagues who are interested in racing.

Do feel free to pass it on to them, if you think they’d enjoy it.

Happy Monday to you.
Matt

Hello again, dear reader, and another short weekend post.

The lays this week have had a torrid time, bordering on embarrassing for yours truly.

Nevertheless, my loss is your gain. (You will have been paper trading only, while my confidence in the selection criteria means I’ve been shedding hard cash this week alas).

Your gain because I will be featuring the lays for another week, because I am determined to demonstrate the long term opportunity they present.

Also, I’m delighted to be able to tell you that I’ll be trialling a tipster on this column next week for you.

And not just any old tipster. Oh no… this is the Nag3 site after all!

This guy is top of the Racing Index Tipping League by a country mile - in fact, here is his service and the next best…

Service Bets SR% Profit ESP
Winning Racing Tips 176 38.1 36.81 915
B4racing 99 29.3 14.85 229

The ESP number (915 against next best of 229) is a formula used to calculate value and, as you can see, there’s no contest.

So I’ll be looking forward to sharing this guy’s wisdom with you next week.

Today’s lay is the old monkey, Tam Lin, at Pontefract.

Matt

Just a quick post today, dear reader, for the sunshine beckons.

Today’s lays are as follows:

Ascot 4.20 Dylan Thomas
Ascot 4.55 Ektimaal (lay for a place)
Newc 2.20 Low Flyer
Salis 6.40 Norisan

Matt

Its that time of the week again, dear reader, when work yields to play, and we enjoy some fun on a Friday.

This week, in honour of the magnificent Simpsons Movie, I’ve raided the youtube archives to bring a touch of culture, yellow stylee…

If you haven’t seen the Simpsons Movie yet (and you probably haven’t, it was only released last night), it comes highly recommended. So many great gags, such as Homer searching for an epiphany: “If you only touch it once or twice, it doesn’t count as playing with yourself?!”, and the magnificent Spider Pig scene. You’ve got to see it, I fear I’m not doing it justice).

Here is Hamlet, reworked by Mr Groening:

And here is the trailer featuring Spider Pig - go and see this movie! Take the kids, the wife, the girlfriend, the boyfriend, the mother in law, the next door neighbour, that cute girl you’ve been meaning to ask out, the checkout girl at Tesco, your lollipop lady, or just yourself. But go and see it, I promise you’ll love it!

I might go and see it again tomorrow…

Bon weekend tout le monde!
Matt

Good morning, dear reader, and the happiest of happy Fridays to you. Rejoice, for today, we revel in the no news that no Tour riders have been banned for being, in the words of the excellent Matt Chapman, “doped up to the eyeballs”.

Yes, the flattish stage yesterday was a complete non-event that started somewhere and ended somewhere else. The only moment of minor interest was when Denis Menchov, a teammate of fallen yellow jersey rider Michael Rasmussen, got off his bike in a fit of apathy, and decided his race was over.

There’s another non-event stage today, before some very interesting action tomorrow.

I actually finally backed a stage winner this year, having sided with the now banned Vinokourov on Monday.

And I am confident of the stage win tomorrow as well. These are the only two names you need: Cadel Evans and Fabian Cancellara. One of these two WILL win tomorrow.

You heard it here first.

On Sunday, they file onto the Champs Elysees in Paris for six laps of the famous cobbles and most likely a sprint finish. Its normally a lesser known sprinter who triumphs here, and my two will be - as ever - Thor Hushovd, plus Robbie Hunter.

After a small mention of the Tour on Monday, I promise to confine it to the dustbin of blogging history. For ten and a half months at least…

Horses, horses. Let’s talk about some horses.

Yet further rejoicing in the Nag household, as not one but two (yes, both) of yesterday’s lays were turned over. In what has been an equally torrid week for me as it has been for Messrs Rasmussen and Vinokourov (ok, slight overstatement…), the tide may have turned…

Today’s lay selections are:

1.25 Thirsk Goodbye
2.10 Ascot Nahoodh
8.15 Newm The Geezer

On the backing front, I fancy a few today. At Ascot, Jamie Osborne’s Enjoy The Moment must go close in the staying event. Indeed, Osborne has a strong hand there today, as he also runs Tears Of A Clown which, while not carrying my money, will be tough to beat I reckon.

Also, Comma at Newmarket looks interesting. She was touched off by a horse called Les Fazzani last time. The latter won by 5 lengths at York last night and, much more significantly, I awarded these two the highest speed numbers I’ve dished out to date on my fledgling sand ratings. (Very annoyingly, I chose to pass on Les Fazzani last night because of the transition from sand to turf).

Other news, and many thanks to St Crispin who, after my rant yesterday, was good enough to email and apologise for his previous comments. Thank you sir, that’s much appreciated.

During that rant, you may remember that I suggested (in a mocking) fashion that the Saint might like to try Laying Maestro. Well, since then, I’ve had the best part of a dozen emails from people saying they have it and its’ - erm - not very good.

So, here’s the deal everyone. If you have bought a product through Clickbank and you don’t like it, you can claim a refund by taking the following action:

Go to www.clickbank.com and at the top right, there is an option called customer service.

Select customer questions, and it should bring up a form that you can fill in to request a refund. In the ‘subject of request’ box, select ‘I would like to request a refund’.

Note, you will need your clickbank invoice with your order id on it.

Two more points of interest. Firstly, the Noel Wilson Racing Club that I mentioned previously as an affordable way of getting into a syndicate is still available.

The reason I mention this again today is because I notice that they have their first runner, Red Skipper, this afternoon at Thirsk in the 2.00. Now, don’t expect too much. The likelihood is that the horse will very much need the run, and will come to himself later in the season, probably in nurseries.

If you want more info on the club, take a look at their newsletter, which is here.

I wish them well with that.

Incidentally, my own (part of) race horse is back in training after his setback and, apparently, going well. He is scheduled to run at Newmarket next Saturday 4th August. I will be there, as I will be at Goodwood the previous day. If any Nag readers plan to be at those meetings and would like to say hello, just drop me an email using the feedback page on here. I’m always pleased to meet people. (Don’t get out much, you see…!)

Finally, a quick thank you to those who have used the button on the top left of the page to tell their friends about this blog. And a request: if you know of someone who might like to read my daily drivel / bluster / informative racing and other sporting bulletins, click the “Tell A Friend About This Blog” button and mail it to them.

Alternatively, just get them to click here, and hit send on their email program. That will sign them up too. (They’ll even get a special signup bonus - woohoo!)

Many thanks for your continued support, and I’ll be back later with some Friday fun, inspired by the greatest yellow family ever, The Simpsons. (Went to the movie last night - brrrrrrrrrrrilliant!)

Until then…
Matt

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 19^th 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 that is the Roodee. 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 some 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.

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:

Years: 2004 2005 2006

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:

1. There is an exact linear relationship between a horse’s weight position in the handicap hierarchy, and its win strike rate (‘chapeau’ to the handicapper!!). Top weights win just about once in every eight handicaps, whereas those tenth or lower win only around one in twenty.
2. 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 in this post, 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.

In the next exciting (!) instalment, we’ll start to look at alternative approaches, starting with my favourite – and probably the most obvious – element, speed.

Until then…
Matt

N.B. the next piece in this series will not be until early next week. I trust that won’t spoil anyone’s weekend ;o)

Well, just when you thought the Tour could stoop no lower, dear reader, so it manages to scrape itself sub-terranean.

Yesterday came news of a positive drug test for Christian Moreni (about the only Italian in the race to make the news!).

But worse was to follow, as suspected doping offender, and clear race leader Michael Rasmussen, was sensationally booted out by his own team.

Nobody at cycling’s world body or in the Tour organising committee shed a tear for the very suspicious Ras.

It transpires that he has recently failed to notify authorities of his whereabouts on four occasions, when three failures is treated as a positive drug test with an ensuing ban.

But worse than that, and what his paymasters could not accept, Rasmussen lied about his whereabouts in the run-up to the race. He had said that he was in Mexico, where his wife is from.

In fact, he was in Italy working with Dr Michele Ferrari, the infamous cycling quack known to make his wheelers go faster, by fair means or foul.

The cloud of suspicion became too heavy for Rabobank and then it burst, leaving Rasmussen without a job and without a team, and the Tour with a new young (hopefully clean) rider at the helm.

Step forward Alberto Contador. He is around two minutes up on Nag3 selection Cadel Evans, with just one meaningful stage to go.

That stage is the time trial this Saturday, and Evans will be favourite to win it. Whether he can beat Contador, who is a fair TT man himself, by two minutes is doubtful but not impossible.

Either way, barring any more drama, and my top 3 and top 6 wagers on the Aussie look safe. (I also had a small wager on Contador at 22/1 if you remember).

Onto racing, and the Laying System selections. A winner and a loser yesterday, so I’m definitely in the midst (ideally at the end) of a poor run.

Today’s lays are:

York 7.30 Secret World
Sandown 3.55 Amarna

On the subject of these lays, and in response to a very surprising email I received, my advice is always to paper trade with a new system.

Moreover, any lay system has the propensity for significant short term losses, which in no way hinders its chances of long term gains.

It happens that this week I started to share the lays on a down cycle, but that will pass. To the gentleman who contacted me to tell me he’d lost money and would be better with a pin, I say you are right sir. You clearly do not have the right attitude with your betting to make something like this pay.

Perhaps you might try Laying Seven or the Laying Maestro systems: I’m told they’re very good… (granted I’m told that by their own marketing spiel, and I’ve never seen them put up a selection ahead of time, but it might be for you sir…)

To take laying seriously, you need a bank of at least 40 points, you need patience and discipline, and you need to see a mid- to long-term view.

Lecture over. Sometimes people just p155 me off!

Back later with part 2 in the series on US vs UK form analysis, for those of you who are interested in such things.

Matt

Introduction

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 12^th 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, in the mind of this scribe at least.

The point of this rather ragged and incomplete history lesson, lest you wonder, 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 / 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, and the key theme of this mini-series, 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. And 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 posts, 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 Blighty.

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 we should seek to take advantage of our window of opportunity.

And but a window it is. For, as with all systems and methods, its effectiveness will be finite and timebound. What works today because it is the premise of a minority of anti-establishment thinkers will tomorrow be the accepted wisdom of everyman.

Although it is sometimes difficult to take the less well-trodden route, it is unequivocally there that the path to financial gain lies.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at the history and evolution of UK form, and briefly consider its strengths and weaknesses as a means of identifying horses to invest in.

Matt

Back from the gym, dear reader, and my head is somewhat clearer.

Time to escape the murky waters inhabited by sharks on bicycles, and revert to what we all know and love best: dear old horses.

Alas, again, I can’t find anything to get excited about. It really is pretty mediocre fare this week. (Fear not, though, for Glorious Goodwood is next week!)

At Catterick, there is a pretty strong draw bias towards high numbers, and a rag with a squeak is Northern Candy in the 4.20. He’s only had four runs, gets weight (for age and claiming price) from most of these, and has the best of the draw.

His best run was last time, and might improve enough to hit the board at around 50/1. In a race full of professional losers, I’d rather tickle at an unexposed one than plunge on the favourite.

Elsewhere, and the Laying System selections today are:

Catterick 5.50 Rare Coincidence
Leicester 6.45 Art Master

Let’s hope for a change of fortune on what, thus far, has been a pretty miserable week in that department.

As promised, later I’ll be posting the introductory synopsis for a little alternative form study series I’m writing. Warning: if you don’t like my verbosity, look away now… (or at least then).

For now, ciao
Matt

Wow, I woke up this morning feeling sick to the pit of my stomach, dear reader. My head hurts and I don’t really know what day it is.

All I can remember is flirting outrageously with someone who, in the cold light of day, was clearly taking advantage of my good nature and advanced state of inebriation.

I am, of course, talking metaphorically about my worship of the false god who is Vinokourov. The man who was single-handedly building a Tour legend at this year’s event has failed (or should it be passed, if you are positive?) a blood test.

The test revealed that he had “old and new red blood cells” in his system on Saturday, the day of his monumental time trial success. This means he must have had a transfusion that day. If he rode like he had the power of two men, that’s because he did.

Blood doping, for those who don’t know, enables the body to take on extra red blood cells. These are the ones that carry oxygen round the body and sustain a rider’s stamina.

Vino is no sporting idol. He is just another cheat in a sport riddled with them. As I suggested in my preview, perhaps cycling was the fairest sport of all because they were all cheating. I had also intimated that that perspective was outmoded and that the sport was entering a cleaner era.

It seems this is not the case. Vino’s blatant flouting of the rules, allied to Sinkewitz (the T Mobile rider) already being sent home for testing positive for testosterone, and the growing raincloud of doubt over the head of Tour leader Michael Rasmussen, and the ongoing case against last year’s winner, Floyd Landis, make this arguably the darkest of many dark days for recent Tour history.

Indeed, for Rasmussen it has emerged that he did not just receive two warnings, but four, for failing to notify the drug authorities of his whereabouts. Three warnings is supposed to count as a positive drug test and a ban should ensue.

The authorities now have the extremely embarrassing situation where this year’s and last year’s Tour winners may be thrown out retrospectively.

I don’t know what to write, or to make of the current situation. I still love the sport, like I still love a drink. But sometimes when I wake up with a terrible hangover, I just feel I never want to drink again.

Even when there is a party that day, such as the sporting fiesta that is Stage 16 of the Tour today. 218.5km of fearsome climbs and descents: the toughest stage of the Tour. And the question everyone will be asking is, “Who’s clean?”.

TdF: R.I.P.

Sombre Matt

The secret of great comedy, as you may know dear reader, is….. *checks watch, and counts to fifteen*…. timing.

As is the secret to launching a great product.

In the micro-economy of the past two days, the laying system has had the proverbial stinker. No matter, for bloodied but not unbowed, we continue: the mission now is to climb the (small category 4) hill back to level stakes, then push on.

Ainama hacked up today, making two big priced winning (and therefore losing) lays in two days.

The nature of any approach is that it will have good and bad turns. As long as the rationale is solid, the method will out.

In this case, I’m conscious that the method is somewhat translucent to you currently, so over the course of the next few days, I’m going to share with you the key elements that I look for in a (hopefully) losing horse.

Its no secret that I look to lay Racing Post favourites. A glance at the history of the qualifiers will show you that.

But there are a number of other factors which inform my decisions: primarily, pace, speed and class.

Now you may or may not know what these mean, and you cannot know what they mean specifically in the context of my interpretation.

But, starting later today, you’ll get an inkling into my thoughts and then, irrespective of the results in the short term, I hope that you’ll appreciate the consideration that frames the choices.

Enough already, and on with the show… tomorrow, I’ll introduce my overall mindset, which is to try to find a different approach than the traditional ‘pounds and lengths’ scales of collateral form study which, frankly, I’ve always found at best ethereal (and at worst, downright misleading).

Then, on Thursday, I’ll touch on why I think traditional British form study is due for retirement (in the main), before continuing next week with a look at the triumvirate of ‘newfangled’ tools: pace, class and speed. (Actually, as some / many of you will know, they’re not new at all, and have been evolving nicely for decades Stateside without really taking off in a major way here… yet!)

More later.
Matt