NH sectional times

I would just add..if someone came to me and told me he would give me 5 horses a month that definitely have 8lbs in hand of their current mark..i'd snatch his hand off every month
 
Desert Orchid said:
I wouldn't want to bet in a £6k race for six thousand reasons.Astigos might win but I don't imagine it will be because he's 8lbs ahead of his mark. It will be because he's considered a lot better than that at home, but in the absence of that knowledge, I wouldn't consider getting involved at short odds.
Click to expand...

But surely DO, isn't what Alun's doing here, a roundabout way to eek out some insight without the benefit of inside information. After all he's not telling anyone they have to bet, he's just parting some otherwise unknown angle that could aid.
 
Maxbet..its Alan by the way..you thinking of Warbler i think.

Yes indeed..i'm not telling anyone what to bet..the thread is purely an exercise to see if there is worth in the idea

its not some set in stone cast iron guaranteed winner finder..we got Slim for that:)
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
tbh..i'm not following much of that..you say..only 8lb above its mark..like its nothing..thats an 8 length edge...do you only bet horses that have 12lb or 16 or 20 in hand?

you say if it wins it won't be because its 8lb in hand..but it will be because at home it might be 14

how on earth do you ever have a bet thinking like that?

how do you know how much a trainer thinks his horse has in hand in any race..how is it even relevant if we cannot measure it?

to be honest here..i'm reading that bit about if it wins it won't be the 8 in hand..and i'm worryingly getting the feeling you are trying to make a reason for it winning that takes any credit away from it being spotted here on this thread..i hope thats not the case

its no skin off my nose whether these win or not..its just an area of interest to me tbh
Click to expand...

So much to address in there:

You know exactly which horses I back every week so you should be able to answer the first question yourself but for the sake of others trying to follow the debate:

My default position - which Grasshopper for one disagrees with - is that most handicaps are won by horses that are well handicapped on the day. The logic behind this is simple. It's a handicap. The handicapper has tried to ensure they all finish in a dead-heat. Logic dictates that the winner is almost certainly under-rated by the official. The bigger the field and more valuable the race the further ahead of its mark the winner is likely to be. That is why horses are 'put away' for certain races. Connections want to ensure their horse is as far ahead of the handicapper as they can get it.

My form study approach is two pronged.

Firstly, I try to evaluate the worth of each performance in each race [that I study].

Secondly and within that, I try to identify horses whose ratings offer evidence whether subtle or obvious that they are improving and at what rate. These are the ones I am most interested in going forward. Astigos, to use a concrete example, is one for which my figure suggests he was 12lbs ahead of his rating last time and couldn't win because it was a very strong race. Although he didn't win, the handicapper has clearly taken the view that he was under-rated so he has tried to address that. We agree that he hasn't gone far enough but there are other horses in the race about which he might also have made a mistake. But effectively, Astigos has been penalised for not winning. Now, it is hard to imagine today's race, because of the field size and value, being anywhere near as competitive as that Cheltenham race, but since I haven't studied the race I cannot determine how competitive it is. Astigos is probably the best handicapped horse in the race but I can't say that with any certainty hence I cannot recommend it as strongly as you feel you can.

I'm not trying to diminish your achievement in identifying the horse in advance of today but even if it does win all that's happened is that a hot favourite has obliged. The question is, why was it favourite? Probably because everyone else came to pretty much the same conclusion as your good self.

I'm not suggesting you recommended to anyone at any time that we should back it either.

I do hope my contribution to the debate isn't offending you in any way.
 
no i'm not offended DO

i just don't get why there needs to be a beforehand decision made about what this or that means if it wins..its the first one to run isn't it?

i mean..if it's the case each time one wins..hopefully..it will be..oh well its nowt do with the method being up to much..its just a fav winning...there isn't much point in ever being pleased with anything or anyone ever posting selections any more if they are fav i would think
 
Last edited:
Again, without wishing to offend, I'm not at keen on posts that put up very short shots as good things.

That isn't what's happened here. I want to make clear that I accept that.

What's happened here, in my opinion, is that it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that the first to run from the race we both identified as being strong form, happens to be a hotpot. Had it been a big Saturday race and it was 10/1 I'd be tempted to back it but not just because it is 8lbs (on my figures - more on yours) better than its mark, it's because I suspect the form might be better again than I've rated it and they're going for the race because they think/know the same based on its work at home.

I'm much more circumspect about smaller races. Are they going for this because they think this is as good as it is? If it's 4/6, can they make more money laying it at evens and at the same time get it back down to 118? What's the point in picking up a piddly £6k and have its mark raised again? If it pishes up, it might go up to 130+. Then what?

If you've backed it I hope it wins well for you from the financial and justification points of view. I'll be please for myself if it wins because it's franking form that I identified as strong. But it's a bet I'm not prepared to make. :)
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't say that. The Cheltenham form is the 130 form. I looked at that race in advance and concluded:

I did this race out of curiosity but won’t be having a bet in it. There are too many imponderables.
Click to expand...

After I'd studied the weekend's results, I concluded:

I left the novice chase alone but I’m taking a positive view of the form, as has the handicapper. The first five all seem on the up.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've just realised Astigos isn't the first to run from that race. Carole's Destrier smashed a good field in a valuable handicap chase at Ascot next time up off 1lb lower. I suspect that will also be in the minds of punters today as they assess Astigos's chances. if he could be guaranteed to make half the progress (and show it) he'd be a long odds-on shot for sure.
 
Last edited:
its how it reads DO..i thought it were odd like...ok then..

so how did you come to the conclusion the first 5 are in front of their marks....how did you know to work from Mosspark as being the one who has run his race and so frame the ratings around him.
 
I didn't.

I looked at the previous ratings and profiles of the first seven (they were well clear), looked at the profile of the race (it's historically stronger than average for the class) and came to a conclusion I was most comfortable with but I see I ahve a '+?' above the entire race which means I think the form may be better still but to be honest I can't remember if I did it at the time or after Caroles Destrier had come out and won so well.
 
thats looks one hell of a guess to me though DO..not saying it is..would be for me though...i couldn't have gone back to 6th + 7th and said they ran to their marks with any confidence whatsover

there is no way on earth i could have picked in that race which horses have not run to their marks..you have gone back to a horse beaten over 10 lengths and rated off it...in a handicap.

makes what i am doing here look like precision lathe work tbh in comparison

all power to you if you can make those decisions in handicaps with accuracy..i just don't see how i could do it within +/- 8/10lbs tbh
 
Last edited:
just to add..not critcising it..i just wouldn't be able manage without a security blanket of something to back up findings..probably why i don't bother too much trying to handicap in that way
 
Desert Orchid said:
So much to address in there:

You know exactly which horses I back every week so you should be able to answer the first question yourself but for the sake of others trying to follow the debate:

My default position - which Grasshopper for one disagrees with - is that most handicaps are won by horses that are well handicapped on the day.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually disagree with it. I disagreed with (what I thought was) your assertion that well handicapped horses win races, to the exclusion of every other factor such as trip, going, track etc. However, you then went on to say that you would consider a horse could be well-handicapped based not only on its mark, but also based on prevailing race conditions i.e. trip, going, track etc - in effect, a horse could be well-handicapped under conditions X, but not under conditions Y.

It's a definition difference, I think.

I might not think that a horse is particularly well-handicapped (based solely on OR), but I may think it has every other factor in it's favour, and (under the strict conditions that apply on a particular day) think it's ready to win. I tend not to consider these horses "well-handicapped" per-se.......just suited to particular conditions on a given day.

If I've followed your position correctly, you will consider a horse to be "well-handicapped" after factoring-in all these other peripheral considerations, and do not base your view of whether a horse is well-handicapped or not, solely on the horse's OR.

We are, in effect, doing the same thing - it's just the nomenclature that we use that is different.
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate, i've just looked at the race and I would be worried about Up and Go getting an easy time of it up front and there not being enough pace for Astigos to show his best.

I'll be contrary and put up Up and Go against him based on the "race conditions/dynamics" will suit better line of argument.
 
I think the big difference, though, is that it would be very rare for me to back a horse in a handicap whose rating in my book is the same as its OR.

I sort races out in order of my ratings (same as Postdata) along with my annotations (improvers, etc) then see if there's anything in there I might reasonably expect to improve past the top rated or for reasons why the top rated might not run to form. The aim isn't necessarily to find the winner of the race, though. If I come across two I can't separate and one is 2/1 while the other is 20/1 there's no way I'm backing the 2/1 shot. I don't care if it wins.
 
Price is another factor which influences selection, DO - wholly agree.

Re the 'Your Rating vs OR Rating' bit, wouldn't it be the case that you would have a Master Rating (for want of a better expression), but that you would potentially adjust this up/down, depending on race conditions, and that you may find that your Master Rating is higher/lower than the OR, after you've completed those calculations?

I'm assuming that you would do all of this as part of your due diligence per-race, rather than dismiss a horse, based solely on your Master Rating not being ahead of the OR??

Genuine question.
 
Last edited:
I tend not to go into it with that level of minutiae, Gh. The ratings in my table will obviously be a master rating. But I don't need to take xlbs off if the going doesn't suit. I just discard it as a betting proposition. If I don't think the jockey is right I'll discard it.

Yesterday, for example, I had Poole Master top rated but concluded he was being prepared for the Topham so binned it without further thought.

In a proper, valuable handicap I would pretty much instantly dismiss the chances of a runner whose OR was the same or higher than mine, unless I had a '++' or '+p' or perhaps a significant jockey booked. Maybe not 100% of the time. I'll probably look at it think 'why?'. Why should it beat a dozen others that are ostensibly better handicapped? If I can't come up with a damn good reason, it's binned.
 
Right you are......interesting approach.

If you bin your top-weight (e.g. Poole Master), do you dismiss the race entirely at that point, or just the horse?
 
EC1 said:
thats looks one hell of a guess to me though DO..not saying it is..would be for me though...i couldn't have gone back to 6th + 7th and said they ran to their marks with any confidence whatsover
Click to expand...

Guesswork? I wouldn't go that far. It's, at worst, educated guesswork but it is based on 40+ years of studying form. It's more about developing an understanding of what's more likely to be the case and then trying to put a meaningful - accurate would be brilliant! - figure on it.

Your approach to time is something I find invaluable as a back-up to my own approach even though I do some time analysis myself. I'd like to think you find my form-based approach a useful back-up tool too.
 
Grasshopper said:
Right you are......interesting approach.

If you bin your top-weight (e.g. Poole Master), do you dismiss the race entirely at that point, or just the horse?
Click to expand...

Just the horse.

I've just checked. Poole Master was second top rated. It was in my mind as it was the first to be dismissed.

This is my summary of the race (Relax was top rated):

With the intended selection There’s No Panic a morning withdrawal, I’m having to re-think this race. I’m presuming Poole Master is almost certainly being trained for the Topham so I’m ruling him out. Alan King likes West End Rocker’s chances but at thirteen he can’t be getting better. Triangular (who, incidentally, must be one of the few remaining grandchildren of the great Nijinsky still running) may well have another target further down the line although he did go close in what was effectively his first run of the season for his new yard. If Relax (was 14/1, now 10/1 in the new market, which is quite a cut) can get into a rhythm off a soft lead he might just stay there so he gets the vote. Of the market leaders I prefer the chances to Soll over Fourofakind. He isn’t well handicapped on his recent win but is on his old form and is blinkered for the first time. A good run won’t get him up the weights for the National (for which only he, Poole Master and Tranquil Sea hold entries) but it might get him preference over others on the same rating if it comes to that. I think there’s more chance of Triangular running to form first time up than Tranquil Sea so he’ll carry the saver.
Click to expand...
 
Desert Orchid said:
Guesswork? I wouldn't go that far. It's, at worst, educated guesswork but it is based on 40+ years of studying form. It's more about developing an understanding of what's more likely to be the case and then trying to put a meaningful - accurate would be brilliant! - figure on it.

Your approach to time is something I find invaluable as a back-up to my own approach even though I do some time analysis myself. I'd like to think you find my form-based approach a useful back-up tool too.
Click to expand...


your form based stuff is invaluable DO..i couldn't do it..i create ratings for some big races based on a horses form in my own way as well..and that is enough for me to do myself form rating wise..the time angle is always where i have a fascination.

every angle helps
 
Great thread. I'm with DO on his approach to jumps racing though. The use of ratings can't be in isolation over the sticks and It needs educated elimination/guesswork as well. Either way there are more factors to consider than on the sand where a ratings approach with course, class and jockey only is likely to be more reliable.

I think the differences in your approaches are largely to do with the fact you specialise in different types of racing.
 
Back
Top