Form - Ability and Opportunity

Did his numbers tell him that Ruby would have a brainstorm; and give CF what was probably the most inspired ride of the whole Festival? :)
 
I didn't understand all of it, but it deals with an important point. One of the weaknesses in my punting is to overvalue past performances compared with what might happen in the future, and these articles help to explain why that might be.
 
Indeed Grey. I'll still end up laying the Ballydoyle successor to Camelot and Kingsbarns in the Racing Post Trophy.
 
Lighten up, DJ.:)
Any sensible punter would factor improvement into their calculations, and few would expect a novice of MTOY's high rating to show much more than he already had. However, his opponents needed to show major progression to threaten him, or he needed to fall in a hole. Moot point as to what happened, but he put up a good enough performance to wholly justify his short price.
While the mathematical approach wouldn't be my way, plenty have made it pay in the past but, like value punting, much depends on the knowledge backing up that judgement, and while JW can often produce a stream of fine figures - with all due respect - he's hardly someone you'd depend on marking your card..
 
That's a potentially libellous statement, I would have thought, Slim
 
Last edited:
If I'm reading it correctly, I'm pleased that it seems to vindicate my own approach, which is largely centred around identifying likely improvers who will run better than before.

I had MTOY as an improver, though. He did run to a huge rating for one with his previous form in the Betfair. He did so with a degree of comfort and it wouldn't have been unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect that his improvement wouldn't have come to an end, given that many novices are still improving at this stage.

I think his conclusions are flawed in that MTOY shouldn't have been odds-on. On the day, he didn't improve on his Betfair form while Champagne Fever found much greater improvement than was reasonable to expect. After all, if MTOY had already run to a rating higher than any other winner of the race in modern times he really only had to run to the same rating to have an outstanding - odds-on - chance of winning. My own figures suggest he did run to the same rating but on the day Champagne Fever produced another exceptional performance to beat him. I'd say the probability of that happening beforehand was a lot less than his final price would have suggested.

But that's racing, isnt it?
 
I think it was a case of one horse wanting it a lot more than the other. Champagne Fever is a serious battler.
 
Last edited:
reet hard said:
Lighten up, DJ.:)
Any sensible punter would factor improvement into their calculations, and few would expect a novice of MTOY's high rating to show much more than he already had. However, his opponents needed to show major progression to threaten him, or he needed to fall in a hole. Moot point as to what happened, but he put up a good enough performance to wholly justify his short price.
While the mathematical approach wouldn't be my way, plenty have made it pay in the past but, like value punting, much depends on the knowledge backing up that judgement, and while JW can often produce a stream of fine figures - with all due respect - he's hardly someone you'd depend on marking your card..
Click to expand...

Sorry Reet.

As you say, and as the second article points out, any punter worth their salt factors it in almost subconsciously. Just think it's interesting sometimes to read some of the mathematical theory behind the decisions we make as punters.

FWIW I don't think My Tent Or Yours is a great example of what he talks about, but putting that aside, it's good food for thought I think.
 
Grey said:
I think it was a case of one horse wanting it a lot more than the other. Champagne Fever is a serious battler.
Click to expand...

Agree strongly here. NYE travelled all over him in the bumper last year and this season I comnented a few times after his races as to his toughness.
 
A P currently doing a twitter Q & A on Racing Post

Q Is my tent or yours a good enough horse to win at Cheltenham seems like he's a bridal horse and prefers flat tracks!

AP He got beat by a very good horse. He’s a very strong traveller & he didn’t curl up at CheltFest. Chasing may bring out the best in him
 
Its a good article though. I don't think we as punters realise how often we put our miney in 'bad'.
 
Diamond Geezer said:
A P currently doing a twitter Q & A on Racing Post

Q Is my tent or yours a good enough horse to win at Cheltenham seems like he's a bridal horse and prefers flat tracks!

AP He got beat by a very good horse. He’s a very strong traveller & he didn’t curl up at CheltFest. Chasing may bring out the best in him
Click to expand...

He's certainly no where neat good enough to win a Champion Hurdle. I put up his head carriage and inability to quicken as a huge negative and something that will haunt him all his days. He found ziltch at Cheltenham again. He'll win races like the Fighting Fifth on the bridle but if he goes to Cheltenham for the festival forget it. I agree he'll make a good chaser but that won't happen next season.


The fact Champagne Fever goes straight over fences indicates what chance MTOY has in the Champion Hurdle next year plus his Betfair form isn't worth a bucket of manure. How many have run since and won? I only looked at the first 7 home behind him and gave up.
 
Tanlic said:
He's certainly no where neat good enough to win a Champion Hurdle. I put up his head carriage and inability to quicken as a huge negative and something that will haunt him all his days. He found ziltch at Cheltenham again. He'll win races like the Fighting Fifth on the bridle but if he goes to Cheltenham for the festival forget it. I agree he'll make a good chaser but that won't happen next season.


The fact Champagne Fever goes straight over fences indicates what chance MTOY has in the Champion Hurdle next year plus his Betfair form isn't worth a bucket of manure. How many have run since and won? I only looked at the first 7 home behind him and gave up.
Click to expand...

He's a horse that needs a strong pace and he hasn't had that in his last two outings. In the Betfair he won because he was well handicapped to the tune of a stone and had little to beat. The merit or otherwise of the horses he bested in that race is completely irrelevant to his future prospects.

Ruby rode the perfect tactical race in the Supreme. He had enough left in the tank to deny the favourite. In a strongly run CH MTOY would have a favourite's chance if it wasn't for the probable presence of Our Conor.
 
Thanks for that, David.

The obvious question - and one which he doesn't really address - I would have after reading that is to what extent the the market factors in (or "discounts") opportunity cost. He seems to imply that most people (and presumably most markets?) over-estimate the substance of past performances. My intuition has always been that the market at times has a tendency to over-compensate for opportunity costs (i.e. a winner of an average maiden going off a short price in a Graded race).

In any case, surely if you were to do it seriously you would need to quantify the likely improvement based on trainer/pedigree/time of year or something (I suspect the bookies already model for this sort of thing?); adjusting purely for number of starts seems far too simplistic - although I suspect he was merely using that as a means to illustrate his point.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
I think it was a case of one horse wanting it a lot more than the other. Champagne Fever is a serious battler.
Click to expand...

That, to me, epitomises the true punting dilemma, and it's what one makes of the form that will directly influence whatever chances they accord the principals in future.
On the one hand we have (loosely) Fist's "he won't win another decent race" and the other, Euro's "all he needs is a strong pace", and there's a broad spectrum of interpretation between.
Unless, and until, the aspirant punter can pinpoint the reasons astutely, he cannot even begin to put an accurate price on their chances, and will always (imvho) be subject to the vagaries of happenstance.
Maybe I'm biased, as I've approached racing from a very different angle to JW, but I've long believed the ideal is to eliminate as much guesswork as possible, rather than allow for it in the prices.
 
Euronymous said:
He's a horse that needs a strong pace and he hasn't had that in his last two outings. In the Betfair he won because he was well handicapped to the tune of a stone and had little to beat. The merit or otherwise of the horses he bested in that race is completely irrelevant to his future prospects.

Ruby rode the perfect tactical race in the Supreme. He had enough left in the tank to deny the favourite. In a strongly run CH MTOY would have a favourite's chance if it wasn't for the probable presence of Our Conor.
Click to expand...


agree with this in the main

allthough the triumph form may not turn out to be the greatest our coner very impressive but what he beat in it is debatable a plodder came 2nd and might be better stepping up to 3 miles or going over fences.Rolling star either didnt run his race or was over rated.

binocular was beaten in this looking like he didnt act on the track but went on to win the CH.

darlan came 2nd and obvioulsy you cant tell what would have happened if he had lined up in march but looked like a horse who would have had a hand in the finish
 
prince regent said:
agree with this in the main

allthough the triumph form may not turn out to be the greatest our coner very impressive but what he beat in it is debatable a plodder came 2nd and might be better stepping up to 3 miles or going over fences.Rolling star either didnt run his race or was over rated.

binocular was beaten in this looking like he didnt act on the track but went on to win the CH.

darlan came 2nd and obvioulsy you cant tell what would have happened if he had lined up in march but looked like a horse who would have had a hand in the finish
Click to expand...

the time of the triumph earmarks it as an exceptional performance..to be fair nothing finished 2nd
 
Last edited:
Back
Top