Road to Punting Success 2011

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gearoid
  • Start date Start date
EC1 said:
trainers who have a lot of lower grade horses..as they don't run to form as much as horses from better stables..
Click to expand...

This is what I am asking, EC. Is there proof of this or has it just been repeated enough to be taken as fact. Like the big horses can carry 12st better than smaller horses theory which I asked about on the Gold Cup thread than no-one was able to offer any proof or research into it.
 
On a completely different topic, I am beginning to think there is less value on the AW at this time of year. In November and December you have horses who are still priced up on the pick of their turf form rather than their AW form and the same applies in March when horses are coming back from winter breaks.

I find during Jan and Feb, the form is all well known and is much more factored into the betting than it is at the end of the flat season or before the start of the flat season. I found it much easier to price races up and have decent differentials in both March and November last year and I'm really struggling on the AW at the mo.

Anyone (prob DJ) think this theory has substance or is it total bollocks? :D
 
Bar the Bull said:
But horses are measured on the level of their ability, rather than the standard deviation of their performances.

DJ,

How about this. Pick 60 horses. All horses must have run at least 13 times. Ignore their first 3 runs.

Pot 1 contains horses with an average RPR (runs 4-13) of between 50 and 60.

Pot 2 contains horses with an average RPR of between 65 and 75.

Pot 3 contains horses with an average RPR of between 80 and 90.

Work out the standard deviation of the RPR's of each pot. Do a statistical test to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference between SD1, SD2 and SD3.

I might have time to do that when I am in Budapest on business next week if the internet connection is good enough.
Click to expand...

Certainly think there is a good chance distance, and possibly as a result of this, field size may have an impact on the results. Might be best to limit the data to only look at sprinters. Then maybe compare at other distances rather than lump all the data together.
 
davidjohnson said:
This is what I am asking, EC. Is there proof of this or has it just been repeated enough to be taken as fact. Like the big horses can carry 12st better than smaller horses theory which I asked about on the Gold Cup thread than no-one was able to offer any proof or research into it.
Click to expand...

I was reading an article on RTF a good while ago..and it just pointed out that you rarely get a lower grade horse trainer with a high RTF

if you equate a lower grade horse trainer to the actual horse..it does answer you question in a way

if lower grade horses are as consistent..ie run within 5 lb of their master rating..then the top 20 RTF% should regularly have lower grade trainers in

so a lazy way of trying the theory out is to monitor trainers RTF..it reflects class of horse quite well I think
 
davidjohnson said:
Has anyone ever seen any research that proves the theory that lower-grade horses are less consistent than higher-rated rivals, or is it just another old wives tale that gets passed from generation to generation. It's illogical for a trait like consistency to be related to ability. Would be genuinely interested to knock if there's any reading on this subject.
Click to expand...

It seems clear that consistency is not directly linked with ability. There are plenty of examples of horses that have shown remarkable consistency as 'yardsticks' while showing moderate levels of absolute ability.
 
Last edited:
Bar the Bull said:
You may be right, but I would prefer proof.

I think it can be proven.
Click to expand...

I'm in no doubt that it can. I support you in your research, but I'm a little surprised you would want to trawl through this to prove something that seems obvious. It’s your time though and I’d be interested although possibly not surprised by your conclusions.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Can anybody tell me whether there is a potential flaw in the research I plan on doing that will stop it accurately answering David's question?

So I don't waste my time, like.
Click to expand...

If you used a bigger sample if would even out the variables more. Surely there is some software that could do this exercise easily?
 
simplest way to do it is to compare 50 random low grade horses with 50 higher ones and see how they run compared to their odds

i use a scale that gives expected distance beaten compared to price..just a matter of seeing how each horse runs against its odds each time..better or worse than odds suggest

either that or RTF method

either way will tell you that higher grade horses are more consistent...imo
 
Last edited:
Could your method be used to judge a horses winning distance? For example Punchestowns (Kempton 3.45). My line was over or under 4.5 lengths.
 
Gearoid said:
Could your method be used to judge a horses winning distance? For example Punchestowns (Kempton 3.45). My line was over or under 4.5 lengths.
Click to expand...

I only use them on the flat Gearoid..I did my calcs off RSB..the freebie flat one

but.. at the price I would say Punchestowns has run above his odds
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
I only use them on the flat Gearoid..I did my calcs off RSB..the freebie flat one

but.. at the price I would say Punchestowns has run above his odds
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm big into using formulas to gauge/guess on the price of things happening in an event based on the player/team/horses price.
 
Seriously though lads this could be a huge waste of time. Firstly what are we going to achieve - a possible tendendcy that lower graded horses are more / less/ equally as consistent as higher grade ones. Will be in any better position to bet profitably on racing as a result?

There has to be a law of diminishing returns referred to here somewhere.

If you use the odds to finishing position test - then you have to accept the Market bias in the results.
Would it not be simpler in that instance to check the finishing position of say the top four in the Market to finishing position in a group of each grade of horse?

If you use the RPR of each horse to finishing position then you are adding in the RPR bias in the results.
This is no easy task and a possibly futile one.
 
On The Bridle said:
Seriously though lads this could be a huge waste of time. Firstly what are we going to achieve - a possible tendendcy that lower graded horses are more / less/ equally as consistent as higher grade ones. Will be in any better position to bet profitably on racing as a result?

There has to be a law of diminishing returns referred to here somewhere.

If you use the odds to finishing position test - then you have to accept the Market bias in the results.
Would it not be simpler in that instance to check the finishing position of say the top four in the Market to finishing position in a group of each grade of horse?

If you use the RPR of each horse to finishing position then you are adding in the RPR bias in the results.
This is no easy task and a possibly futile one.
Click to expand...


I've got to be honest - in the past I've spent many hours on things like this..angles that probably haven't made me any money - but - you are learning a little bit more which sits in the old noggin..gives you a broader knowledge of the game.

so at the end of the day - does it have to make you money initially?..or is it just understanding the game a little better?

going back to this...If you look at % wins of each horse in each class..the higher up the scale you go..the higher the win% ..thats not the question here but..i do know that higher class horses on the whole have greater win % than lower class ones.
 
just another thought

if you are a 120 horse you are going to have less competition than say an 80 rated horse..less competition in the sense that their are less horses going to knock you out of a place...also ..lesser class horses regulary compete in handicaps which removes the superiority edge that higher class horses have

basically its harder to keep placing when all your oppo is weighted to get nearer and past you ..each race you run well in puts your mark up..a barrier the 120 horse doesn't have to overcome
 
Last edited:
Would you make a case for never having a bet in a handicap? If you could only bet on one type of race what would it be?


.
 
Last edited:
Gearoid said:
Would you make a case for never having a bet in a handicap? If you could only bet on one type of race what would it be?


.
Click to expand...


Before I started reading TH I used to treat most races the same re betting..but with reading the board and following mainly the top races I've found I do do better when backing in the bigger races..due to familiarity with the top horses..I mean ..we virtually put a microscope on them when we get the long running threads going..most people here I also suspect specialise in the top races just by talking about them everyday.

So I woulds say it would Group races on the flat and the better non handicaps over jumps..but I do like maiden races on the AW as well.:)

i do find handicaps harder
 
Last edited:
I'd say I have lost enough money on all weather maidens over the last year to buy a decent car.
I like to play the all weather with the exception of Southwell at this time of the year-there is a relatively small number of races and it's possible to get a good understanding of some horses.
 
What are opinions on the 'stats' bets available daily? Distances in particular interest me - looking at the type of races, going, market shape to each race on the card, jockey on the likely winners, likely style of race etc. etc.

I like them, but is it all too much effort for a 7/4 - 9/4 winner?
 
Back
Top