As EC used to say "pace makes the race".
It's always important - no matter how you measure it.
Sectional Timing
- Thread starter barjon
- Start date
It's always important - no matter how you measure it.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
You may be correct, but understanding the form doesn't equate to being a pro standard punter. It's how you apply that understanding.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,751
I would imagine these people would be a tiny minority, certainly as far as sectional timing is concerned.
Once SR puts up his selections the prices get cut; I'd say that has a far bigger impact than punters who use them.
That assumes that SR should be correcting the market. I'm not sure that's a given.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,751
Me neither but it's a fact that whatever he puts up gets cut.
You'd be amazed who moves prices. John Leeper was one I wanted to back yesterdday. I could tell very quickly Segal had put it up. If he hadn't that horse would still be trading 8/1, instead it's a 9/2 shot. That says a lot about the confidence in early prices.
Well they are both tipping into the market when the prices are least accurate. I'm not really sure what the point of Segal is anymore now that the price halves before the RP is even available to subscribers.
Using sectionals as part of a wider approach is fine. Using sectionals as a standalone approach is a quick way to the poor house. The bottom line is that the ability to read and interpret form in the unique context of a race has always been the most important thing, and if you can't do that no set of sectionals, or any other figures will help.
Building a tissue to understand where the value is in a race is something I prioritise. As Slim says above, if you're backing a horse that should be 8/1 at 9/2 you're going to be a losing punter over any reasonable period of time. The likes of Tom Segal(and plenty of others), disproportionately move markets, so there is generally good value elsewhere. However, if you agree with the selection, it becomes a no bet race because the value has been sucked out of it, and the price is wrong. Having access to information that others may not have, or at least having information ahead of the masses is also a significant edge, because information the market doesn't know can't be factored into a price. Despite the downer some on here have on ratings, the ability to fully handicap a race and produce your own ratings is also a good way to potentially exploit what the market misses, and therefore can unlock value. If people don't understand them, or don't want to put the effort in, it doesn't make them bad. They are a very effective tool if applied selectively and correctly.
Going back to the original post, my answer to that is that sectionals are more or less reliable depending on what type of racecourse and circumstance. But as with all of these things it's just another small piece of data to throw into the mix. The most reliable sectionals for comparison will be produced on the all weather courses, closely followed by sharp flat turf courses. However, I think the answer to the question really crosses over into a thread started by chaumi about the reliability of course form and what emphasis you should place on it. Profiling a horse as part of form study for me is important. What type of conditions a horse might run to it's optimum is important, and speed figures don't unlock that, the overall profile of performance under differing conditions does. I wouldn't worry specifically about time figures by course type, and I'd focus on the profile of the horse to answer the question.
There's a pace angle to interpret too though. What's going to make the running? How is the race 'likely' to play out? The interpretation of likely pace is just as important as any figures that are available. DO uses Kelly Holmes 400m win as an example. It's totally valid, because assuming the race is run at an even pace, the best horse at an even pace will win. If it's either a slow pace, or an overly-fast pace, it may very possibly produce a very different result. An inferior horse that is quicker may win a slow run race, or a horse with an abundance of stamina may win a fast run race. In the Kelly Holmes example it takes a very special jockey to not just go the pace of the race, and to run his own race. Jockeys are generally like sheep, and they just follow the pace that's set by the leader. We do however see horses winning by going off quickly and beating much better horses because the others leave it too late and can't close the gap. Or similarly horses seemingly flying from behind and winning, that in reality are still running at the same pace when others are treading water.
As for Simon Rowlands specifically, his work is of genuine merit. It's how you use it that's important. He isn't the best tipster in the world, and that's because his selections are just what his numbers spit out, and there are no other factors being over-laid. The time figures are potentially useful in unlocking a wider puzzle though. Some don't like them, but that's because they want to 'rely on what their eyes tell them'. I'd suggest that isn't the only thing those people do though. 'I saw a horse run well so I'll back it next time', isn't the strategy of a winning punter. All of us take in a whole host of factors, so I never really understand the downer on Rowlands work.
Building a tissue to understand where the value is in a race is something I prioritise. As Slim says above, if you're backing a horse that should be 8/1 at 9/2 you're going to be a losing punter over any reasonable period of time. The likes of Tom Segal(and plenty of others), disproportionately move markets, so there is generally good value elsewhere. However, if you agree with the selection, it becomes a no bet race because the value has been sucked out of it, and the price is wrong. Having access to information that others may not have, or at least having information ahead of the masses is also a significant edge, because information the market doesn't know can't be factored into a price. Despite the downer some on here have on ratings, the ability to fully handicap a race and produce your own ratings is also a good way to potentially exploit what the market misses, and therefore can unlock value. If people don't understand them, or don't want to put the effort in, it doesn't make them bad. They are a very effective tool if applied selectively and correctly.
Going back to the original post, my answer to that is that sectionals are more or less reliable depending on what type of racecourse and circumstance. But as with all of these things it's just another small piece of data to throw into the mix. The most reliable sectionals for comparison will be produced on the all weather courses, closely followed by sharp flat turf courses. However, I think the answer to the question really crosses over into a thread started by chaumi about the reliability of course form and what emphasis you should place on it. Profiling a horse as part of form study for me is important. What type of conditions a horse might run to it's optimum is important, and speed figures don't unlock that, the overall profile of performance under differing conditions does. I wouldn't worry specifically about time figures by course type, and I'd focus on the profile of the horse to answer the question.
There's a pace angle to interpret too though. What's going to make the running? How is the race 'likely' to play out? The interpretation of likely pace is just as important as any figures that are available. DO uses Kelly Holmes 400m win as an example. It's totally valid, because assuming the race is run at an even pace, the best horse at an even pace will win. If it's either a slow pace, or an overly-fast pace, it may very possibly produce a very different result. An inferior horse that is quicker may win a slow run race, or a horse with an abundance of stamina may win a fast run race. In the Kelly Holmes example it takes a very special jockey to not just go the pace of the race, and to run his own race. Jockeys are generally like sheep, and they just follow the pace that's set by the leader. We do however see horses winning by going off quickly and beating much better horses because the others leave it too late and can't close the gap. Or similarly horses seemingly flying from behind and winning, that in reality are still running at the same pace when others are treading water.
As for Simon Rowlands specifically, his work is of genuine merit. It's how you use it that's important. He isn't the best tipster in the world, and that's because his selections are just what his numbers spit out, and there are no other factors being over-laid. The time figures are potentially useful in unlocking a wider puzzle though. Some don't like them, but that's because they want to 'rely on what their eyes tell them'. I'd suggest that isn't the only thing those people do though. 'I saw a horse run well so I'll back it next time', isn't the strategy of a winning punter. All of us take in a whole host of factors, so I never really understand the downer on Rowlands work.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Excellent post, Maruco.
barjon
Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,891
Agree, super post. My only disagreement (in part) is about “value”. I consistently chase worse and worse value when I add as price shortens, just as I forsake better and better value by not betting as price drifts. I know that in theory I should be going broke, but I’m not 
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,751
Yes, he almost invariably justifies his selections as being overpriced based on his interpretation of the form, which appears heavily influenced by his sectional timing.
If your approach is sound and you're almost always backing something that is over-priced you should win in the long run, otherwise you're donald-ducked as a punter.
I'd say if you check his selections on a Friday at teatime then go into oddschecker, 90% of the time they've been cut. I check his selections to see if he's come up with the same as me to allow me to decide whether to get on early.
I've said before, I do think Segal and Kealy get info coming into the RP offices and then use what's in the form book to justify putting it up. Segal went through a couple of long losing spells but appears to have come good again. Kealy is generally consistent and I prefer his selections because his reasoning tends to be along the same lines as mine. But ultimately I will always put my strongest bets on my own selections and take the consequences.
If I hadn't gotten 17/2 John Leeper last night I would have to pass this morning. Tipsters can be very frustrating that way but we all know that.
The other side to tbat though is what you mention about a lot of punters all adding the same horse to their tracker after being an eyecatcer. Horses like that create value elsewhere if the race setup is better for something else. Every race has to be taken on it's own merits. One of the things that surprises me most is how often someone sends me a horse and says, "You bet this last time out." I have no snetiment to horses like that and most of the time can't even remember the horse without looking it up. A good clear out of your tracker is time well spent.
The other side to tbat though is what you mention about a lot of punters all adding the same horse to their tracker after being an eyecatcer. Horses like that create value elsewhere if the race setup is better for something else. Every race has to be taken on it's own merits. One of the things that surprises me most is how often someone sends me a horse and says, "You bet this last time out." I have no snetiment to horses like that and most of the time can't even remember the horse without looking it up. A good clear out of your tracker is time well spent.
Frankel
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Messages
- 4,999
Yup.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,751
I think I would sum up everything in my belief that a good judge will always be able to win betting. It's just a case of how good or how much helps they get with the excution side of it. They are too seperate skills and the execution has been the downfall of far better judges rthan any of us.
chaumi
Rookie
Not disagreeing, especially with the first half. And probably for you, Slim, this is all spot on. But (for the second half) it depends to some extent on the criteria you used for making the selection in the first place. And likely the way you arrive at selections (and what types of races you may target) in general.
(...and I know you know all this, but in the interests of anyone reading that might not.....)
For any horse you back, you had reasons for doing so. So unless you're backing with no 'engagement' in the result you should have some recognition/theory/knowledge afterwards as to why it did or didn't go the way you wanted. Knowing those reasons (and understanding - as far as possible - why you were right or wrong) gives you cause to 'remember' the horse for when it might subsequently run in the way you wanted/expected the first time (when, of course, you begin again in the context of the new race and take all other factors that you see as relevant into consideration, too).
It does, of course, give rise to some situations where the answer after analysis was just 'I was plain wrong'. But, I'd venture to suggest, that would be in a limited number of races (and may well depend on the types of races you tend to follow). The potential risk is in analyzing a performance subsequently and having a vested interest in wanting to find some reasoning that really isn't there, which is where the emotional detachment comes in useful. Or, equally, in misinterpretation, which is where experience comes into play.
It's a good point about 'clearing out a tracker'. Anyone that uses one (and keeps records, either written or stored mentally) should have some good understanding of whether (and under what conditions) their 'tracker' horses perform over time. And adjust appropriately with experience. Harder to do than to say, perhaps.
barjon
Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,891
Slim, I know this will be rather like a village cricketer coming up against a test match player, but please excuse me
If, after a race, you were to price up a re-run in similar conditions wouldn’t it be likely that you would be pricing the 8/1 winner at something near evens, or maybe odds-on, depending on what had transpired in the race? So, wouldn’t you be snapping up 4/1 for the re-run? Or is racing such a game of chance that we’d expect a different result every time.
Slim, I know this will be rather like a village cricketer coming up against a test match player, but please excuse me
If, after a race, you were to price up a re-run in similar conditions wouldn’t it be likely that you would be pricing the 8/1 winner at something near evens, or maybe odds-on, depending on what had transpired in the race? So, wouldn’t you be snapping up 4/1 for the re-run? Or is racing such a game of chance that we’d expect a different result every time.
We have to bet before the race, not after.
barjon
Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,891
Yes, I know. That’s why I talked about pricing up and betting on a re-run. I suppose what I’m asking is why doesn’t the horse that wins represent what actually turns out to be best value whatever it looked like beforehand?
Slim, I know this will be rather like a village cricketer coming up against a test match player, but please excuse me
If, after a race, you were to price up a re-run in similar conditions wouldn’t it be likely that you would be pricing the 8/1 winner at something near evens, or maybe odds-on, depending on what had transpired in the race? So, wouldn’t you be snapping up 4/1 for the re-run? Or is racing such a game of chance that we’d expect a different result every time.
Good point Barj I have never conceived this issue that way.
I am cycles man. I believe in most people doing well with their betting every so often.
The losing runs are what destroys the credibility of many punters including me.
How can I have more frequent good days/weeks/months and less bad periods.
Maybe just back everything Gigilo puts up lol.
Last edited:
I've often thought about the value of a model that priced up a race after the result but as of yet it doesn't exist. You have to build in margin for error into your judgement. So at 17/2 down to maybe 13/2 you could bet John Leeper but at the current price he can win away.
That's exactly as I view it. I know some disagree and will say a winner is a winner, but we all win to percentages, and it's our win percentage combined with the true win chance of the horses we back that decide whether we're profitable or not. It's punting theory 1-0-1, backing horses at poor value inevitably means you lose overall.
In this instance say the view is that the right price for John Leeper is 6/1, so anything above that and he's a bet. The 4/1 after Segal put him up should make him a bargepole job, and you should swerve the race. Someone who backed him at 4/1 that is happy to ignore value will argue that he was winner and so what. But the point is that a horse that should be 6/1 will theoretically come in 1 in 6 times (it's actually slightly worse than that in true terms), so overall you end up behind. The bottom line is the bet is a bad bet whether it wins or not.
Last edited:
Tanlic
Banned member
I wish I could make up a book but I must admit I am clueless.....I just look at what's on offer when I fancy one and most of the time my selections tend to shorten.
But to make up a book and then compare your own prices to those on offer has to be an advantage if you are good at it
But to make up a book and then compare your own prices to those on offer has to be an advantage if you are good at it
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,751
At the same time, there will be form students out there who rate JL a 3/1 chance, in which case they should be hammering it at 4/1.
It's opinions making the market and whose opinion is right. It will vary from race to race.
There are a few on here who are more familiar with my stuff than the general forum population and they'll know it's not unusual for me to say I fancy one but am not prepared to back it at shorter than [I think] it should be.
I do think, though, that because I tend to focus on the better handicaps I'm usually going to be on the right side of the true price.
In non-handicaps, I'm quite happy to bet at 5/2 if I think it should be shorter and I reckon the 'should be odds-on' thread shows there are some on here who can spot short-price value.