|
June 27th 2008
Good afternoon, friends,
- One layer's Royal Ascot and what to make of it....
When doing the wrong thing feels so right....
Virtue is rewarded and foolishness is punished. That's the way the world works and betting is no exception to the rules. It's the smart guys who go home with plums. The guys who bet like simpletons are kept back for a kicking.
In betting, as in all things, it pays to do the right things. The right actions are rewarded. The right moves produce the best outcome.
But sometimes it's the wrong moves that seem so right and feel so good. We convince ourselves these wrong moves are the right moves. We commit to the belief that they will lead us safe and unmolested to our desired outcome. We act as if it were so. And, having lost our bearings (or our minds), we step across the unmarked border between sense and stupidity to take up position on the wrong side of the divide.
Which is exactly where I found myself during Royal Ascot.... breaking my own rules, betting like a simpleton and heading for a bit of a kicking....
Stick to Plan A....
It pays to stick to the plan. The plan was to lay all Royal Ascot runners priced up to go off at 5/2 or less. It was a reasonable plan. Based on the research I shared with you last week, that price band promised to be a sweet spot for exchange layers. It was a plan I was happy with. It was a plan I wish I'd stuck to.
But I didn't.
Some time during Tuesday morning, the first day of the meeting, I found myself caught up in an internal dialogue - wondering and doubting whether runners in the '5/2 or below' band would produce enough action for my appetite. Call it punting fever, a lack of discipline or something to with greed and wanting MORE opportunities to win, but the feeling took hold. And my mind went with it.
Forgetting plan A and the numbers underpinning it, I chased headlong after the action impulse and resolved to lay all runners at 4/1 or less instead - so that there would be more bets for me to get stuck into. Decision made. Wrong road taken. Border crossed. Just like that. You can mess things up in an instant.
As it transpired Royal Ascot did a flip on previous years and proved a loser for layers of the shortest priced horses. So, in hindsight, there was no right course of action - just a sliding scale of wrong outcomes.
Following my original plan and laying horses at 5/2 or below would have resulted in 13 bets with 6 winning bets and 7 losing bets - producing an overall 2.29 point loss.
Nothing to brag about for certain. But definitely a better outcome than if you'd laid every runner at 4/1 or under. If you'd done that, you'd have laid a total of 28 bets with 17 of them winning and 11 losing - producing an overall 4.87 point deficit.
I didn't lose 4.87 points though. Because I didn't follow my second plan through. I wish I had. But I didn't.
When you drop Plan A ..... at least stick to Plan B....
Tuesday passed painlessly. Plan B went okay.
It was on Wednesday when the punishment was dished out. Sabana Perdida won the Windsor Forest Stakes at 4/1 (meaning a 4 point payout). Duke of Marmalade won the Prince of Wales at Evens.
On the Thursday the punishment continued. South Central won the Norfolk Stakes at 11/4. Michita won the Ribblesdale Stakes at 100/30. Yeats won the Gold Cup at 11/8.
On the Friday Cuis Ghaire took the Albany at 8/11. Patkai took the Queens Vase at 6/4.
On Saturday, the last day, I laid Free Agent at 7/2 in the first race, the Chesham Stakes. He won - meaning I'd lost another 3.5 points. I'd had enough. I threw the towel in on plan B and resurrected plan A - only laying horses at 5/2 or less. In the few remaining races only one horse went off at 5/2 or below - Mad Rush in the Duke of Edinburgh (a winning bet for me).
Now I was back on Plan A I declined to lay three horses I would have laid earlier in the week on Plan B. Spanish Moon (3/1 in the Hardwicke), Takeover Target (4/1 in the Golden Jubilee) and Ajaan (7/2 in the Queen Alexandra Stakes).
None of the trio won. Upshot: switching from Plan B back to Plan A at the arse end of the meeting had deprived me of clawing back a bit of what I'd lost over the first four days. A very bitter pill to swallow.
Over the week I made all the wrong moves and that fact was highlighted in my overall outcome. By Saturday teatime I'd laid 25 horses. 14 of my bets were winners. 11 were losers. And I'd been spanked to the tune of 7.87 points.
7.87 points - the price of stupidity and the cost of education....
I don't tend to dwell on these things. Losing is part and parcel of the game and foolishness is both an inevitable consequence and unavoidable implication of being human. We all fall under its spell from time to time.
I deviated from my original research-based plan. I got greedy and adopted an alternative plan designed purely on ensuring plenty of bets - more profit opportunities. It was a dumb move. A stupid move born of greed and a desire for action. I paid the price for my stupidity. And, as part of the deal, I had an experience.
We all have these experiences from time to time - negative experiences we don't necessarily want. But often the experiences we don't want are those we most need. And it's important to remember that these experiences offer an opportunity to learn. Failure to learn condemns us to repeat the same mistakes over and over again - until we do learn.
As far as punting is concerned the lesson is this: bets placed on the basis of solid evidence produce a better outcome than bets placed on wild impulse. The virtuous move produces a better outcome than the stupid move or the greedy move.
Punishment hurts, my friends. It hurts bad. Those 7.87 points have left a discernible dent. But I live to fight another day.
Nor are the virtuous unscathed. They can get hurt too. We saw this at Royal Ascot. Short-priced layers took a hit - however virtuously they played it. Even if I'd taken my own good advice last week, I would still have been in deficit at the end of the meeting.
But what can be said is that the virtuous hurt least. As far as the virtuous are concerned, Royal Ascot wasn't great but it might have been a whole lot worse.
Until next time, be lucky.
June 20th 2008
Good afternoon, friends,
- Some instruction from Royal Ascot...
- Three horses for your notebook....
Races produce both results AND instruction....
Racing can take you through the whole spectrum of emotions in the space of a single afternoon. It's one of the things I love about the sport. One minute you're pumping the air with your fist and setting off on a cartwheel when your pick lands the prize and the profit. Half an hour later you've got that sinking feeling in the gut when you realize the horse carrying your money is a busted flush.
Following and betting on the racing guarantees you're going to experience a mix of the highs and the lows - hopefully enough of the former to make the activity worthwhile. When you've bets on it can be hard to disengage from the rollercoaster of emotions the results produce.
However, if you can muster the necessary discipline, it pays to stand back and remain calm, aware and observant. Fact is a race doesn't only produce a result - it can also provide instruction and winner-finding clues for the future. However, to extract this gold dust, you need to be watching dispassionately and analytically rather than kicking the cat or ranting and raving because your bet has just gone down.
This has been my experience of Royal Ascot this week - some highs, some lows and some strong pointers to take away for the future. I'd like to share my observations with you. They could lead to profitable bets later in the flat season.
The luck wasn't in the draw....
For me, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at Royal Ascot were notable for two reasons.
Firstly, the brilliance of the Ballydoyle horses - Haradasun, Henrythenavigator, Duke of Marmalade and Yeats scooping a quartet of Group 1 races for trainer, Aidan O'Brien, and jockey, Johnny Murtagh.
Secondly, the constant chatter about 'draw bias' in the sprint races - courtesy of the usual suspects (TV commentators, pundits and analysts). 'A low draw is essential'. I lost count of how many times I heard words to that effect on the BBC and At The Races coverage. And it got on my nerves to be honest - because it simply wasn't the case.
Looking at the results of the shorter races (5f-7f) on Tuesday and Wednesday I could find no evidence that any such bias exists. Horses from low draws were getting competitive. But so too horses from middle draws. What seemed to be more important in each race was not where you were drawn but where the pace in the race was coming from.
Having gone through the results, the comments in running and the race reader's analysis, I reached the conclusion that the horses which won these shorter races, and most of those who got competitive, raced on the part of the track where the pace was being set. The horses on that part of the track were able to use that pace to their advantage and were well positioned to strike at the death.
A contrarian approach can pay dividends....
Ever the contrarian, I can't come to the above conclusion without standing it on its head and looking for an angle that bucks the trend.
Most punters forget about a race as soon as it's over. They don't study results. They don't try and make sense of what's happened or try to extract any meaningful insight. They watch their horse, enjoy the win or suffer the loss, and swiftly move on. They pay no mind to the runs of other horses in the race, how the race unfolded, the detail of race events and what these can teach us. Instead they focus on what comes next. The next meeting, the next race and the next bet.
I used to be that way myself. But somewhere along the line - and I don't recall exactly when - I discovered that close attention to what has gone before can prove informative about what is yet to come.
As far as the shorter races at Royal Ascot this week are concerned, if horses running with the pace were at an advantage, then what about those animals that were racing on the wrong part of the track - a part of the track away from the main pace? Any of those that ran well, got competitive or came close - despite being disadvantaged - must be worth taking a closer look at?
It's a theory - one that's paid dividends for me in the past and should produce some winning bets later this season.
Three horses for your notebook that could be profitable to follow ...
I've identified three horses of interest from races on the first two days of the Royal meeting. I've detailed my observations below. Keep a note of these horses and watch out for them. Given preferred circumstances and the run of the race, these could very well be winners waiting to happen - for the reasons I outline.
DANDY MAN ran well to finish 4th in the Group 1 Kings Stand Stakes on Tuesday. Running out of stall 15, he was the furthest away from the stand rail of the 13 runners who went to post. The pace of the race was on the stand side - with the first three past the post contesting the race on that side of the track. Dandy Man raced with three others on the far side and came home 4th - winning the race-within-a-race on the far side and beaten less than a length by the stands-side winner, Equiano. The Godolphin horse would surely have got closer and possibly won had he been racing stands side. He's what I call a winner waiting to happen and I'll be very interested in him in his next race over the minimum distance of 5f on good ground or better. He's entered in the Darley July Cup at Newmarket in July. But that race is over 6f and his record is not as good over that distance as it is over the minimum.
HIMALYA may be better than his bare form in the Group 2 Coventry suggests. Drawn 18 of 18, Himalya did exceptionally well to finish 4th when you consider the fate of those horses running from the stalls closest to him. Stall 17 (17th), Stall 16 (18th), Stall 15 (10th), Stall 14 (9th) & Stall 13 (12th). Himalya's had to work hard to chase the pace and challenge for a place from the far side. Given that Jeremy Noseda's 2-year-old was reported as 'green' (immature) going to post and during the race itself and yet found the resolve to stay on very well, we can expect definite improvement from him as he settles and learns his game. He's going to take a quality sprint race at some point - so keep an eye out for where he turns up later in the season.
LUCKY LEIGH finished 4th in the Queen Mary Stakes on Wednesday from stall 15 of 17. Disadvantaged by racing mid-track and away from the main pace group, she led home her race-within-a-race and produced a strong finish. She only just fell short of getting up to the horses that'd raced with the pace and ultimately filled the first three places. Beaten by two necks and a head, Mick Channon's filly is another who looks like she might have won her race had she been racing on the right side - the pace side - of the track. She lost on Wednesday but looks to me like a winner waiting to happen.
Sprinters can come out again quickly and maintain levels of form - so keep an eye on upcoming entries. These horses are going well, probably underestimated by the wider market, and could prove profitable to follow.
Word to the wise: Horses racing well despite facing disadvantages can be winners just waiting to happen. These horses often go undetected, unappreciated and undervalued by punters who refuse to study race results in detail. Make a note of such 'hidden form' horses. They are better than their bare form suggests. Given the right conditions and the run of the race they can land some nice punts at good prices.
Until next time, be lucky.
13th June 2008
Good afternoon, friends,
Royal Ascot starts on the 17th June. That's a few days away yet, but it's never too early to identify a profitable line of action. I've been doing a bit of research and the results highlight an opportunity to make some profits over the course of the meeting....
- Big races, big prizes, big reputations - it's exactly what we want....
- What Cheltenham can teach us about Royal Ascot....
- 13.1 pts profit from 28 bets over the last two Royal meetings....
Big races, big prizes, big reputations....
Royal Ascot is flat racing's equivalent of the Cheltenham Festival (played out every March over the jumps). The Royal Ascot meeting forms the centerpiece meeting of the English flat season. The best horses contest the biggest races for the most glittering prizes against the best quality horses with the biggest reputations.
With Championship bragging rights up for grabs, big win prize funds to be played for and potentially lucrative breeding values being assigned to race winners, the stakes are high at Royal Ascot. Every connection wants to win and every horse is very definitely trying - tuned to the minute, specifically for the event, by trainers whose reputations can be confirmed and/or enhanced by saddling a winner at the meeting. There is no shortage of motivation for breeders, owners, trainers, horses or jockeys.
In a nutshell the racing at Ascot is fiercely contested- just as it is in every race at the Cheltenham Festival. And it is the competitive nature of the racing at Royal Ascot that attracts my attention.
Overbet horses offer a great profit opportunity....
There's a strategy that's worked really well for me at Cheltenham over the past couple of years. And it's a real simple one: use the betting exchanges to lay every horse that is set to go off at 4/1 or less in every race.
The method is based on the theory that races at the highest level attract most press and TV interest. Certain horses get focused on more than others (after all the press has to produce stories) and the public tends to latch on to these horses and overbet them to the point where their short prices overestimate their ability and their true chances of winning the race.
This state of affairs suggests that it should prove worthwhile opposing the crowd and going against the overreaction - opposing the horses concerned rather than backing them.
And it does. Take a look at Cheltenham 2007 - just one illustration of my point. Of horses sent off by the market at odds of 4/1 or lower, only Kauto Star, Wichita Lineman, Denman and Heads On the Ground obliged - justifying the market's pre-race view of their chances.
But just take a look at the short-priced horses that lost their races - failing to live up to their pre-race billing in the press and the market: Amaretto Rose (2/1); Fair Along (100/30); Detroit City (6/4); Aran Concerto (5/2); Well Chief (Evs); Mad Fish (4/1); New Little Bric (7/2); Monet's Garden (7/4); Black Jack Ketchum (2/1); Opera Mundi (7/2); Gungadu (2/1); Lounaos (7/2); Whyso Mayo (2/1); Saintsaire (5/2) & Fair Along (again) (3/1).
At this year's festival the same thing happened again. 23 horses were sent off at odds of 4/1 or lower. Only 5 lived up to their billing and obliged by winning their respective races - Garde Champetre, Albertas Run, Master Minded, Our Vic and Denman.
The remaining 18 horses proved that short-prices, pre-race press hype and overwhelming support from pundits and tipsters can grossly underestimate the true competitiveness of races at the top level.
What the Cheltenham experience confirms is that where the biggest races are concerned, a short-price is not synonymous with certainty. Opposing short-priced horses can pay handsome dividends.
What's true for the Cheltenham Festival is true for Royal Ascot....
So do recent Royal Ascot results bear this theory out? They certainly do. Look at the following figures:
Lays |
Bets |
Strike rate % |
Profit |
All up to & incl 4/1 |
79 |
78.5 |
10.9 |
All up to & incl 3/1 |
44 |
79 |
11.5 |
All up to & incl 5/2 |
28 |
82.3
|
13.1 |
All up to & incl 2/1 |
20 |
75 |
5.1 |
Less than 2/1 |
14 |
68.5 |
7.1 |
Evens or less |
4 |
75 |
2.4 |
This table shows the results of exchange-laying every runner going off within specific price bands in every race run at the Royal Ascot meeting in 2006 and 2007.
The results assume you laid EVERY horse within the price band - even if there were multiple qualifiers in a single race. This isn't as schizophrenic as it sounds. If you lay a 2/1 shot, a 3/1 shot and a 4/1 shot in the win market of the same race, you have three potential liabilities - depending on which horse wins. If none of the horses wins - you win 3 points (the three backers's losing stakes).
However, for the sake of argument, let's say the horse you laid at 4/1 wins. To a £10 stake you lose £40 on the horse. But you win £20 off the backers of the 2/1 and 3/1 shot (only one horse can win a race remember). You're overall loss is £20. And I'm sure you can see the advantage in doing that? You effectively laid a 4/1 shot at just 2/1.
My figures also assume that you can lay at SP. Generally on the exchanges you'll be laying at slightly larger odds than SP - but not too much. The big differences between SP and Betfair prices are generally more apparent on the outsiders. Fancied horses trade closer to SP.
Every price band tested proved profitable....
As you can see from the table, whatever band of prices you laid - you turned a profit. Obviously, some price brands performed better than others.
Laying every runner at 4/1 or less over the last two Royal Ascot meetings meant you laid 79 horses. That's a lot of bets. It would keep you busy. But you successfully laid a loser (and won the backer's stake) 78.5% of the time and you made a 10.9 point profit.
What does that 10.9 point profit mean? Well, first off, it assumes you laid every horse to a level stake. So whatever price the horses you laid were trading at - you always laid them to a set stake. Whatever the value of your level stake you simply multiply that by the 10.9 to establish your cash profit.
If you were laying every horse to a £100 stake, for example, you'd be £1,090 to the good right now. From a £10 stake, that's £109.
Laying every runner at 3/1 or less over the last two Royal Ascot meetings meant you laid 44 bets. You successfully laid a loser 79% of the time and made an 11.5 point profit. To a £100 level stake that equates to a £1,150 profit. Or £115 from £10 stakes.
The real sweet spot comes in the next price band - where you lay every runner at 5/2 or less. Laying every runner at this price or less over the last two years would mean you'd laid only 28 bets, won 82.3% of the time and turned a profit of 13.1 points. Off 28 bets laid to a £100 level stake you would have turned a profit of £1,310 over the last two Royal Ascot meetings - an average profit per bet of £46.78. And from £10 stakes, that's £131 overall profit - and approx. £4.68 profit per bet.
I can live with those type of figures, ladies and gentlemen. Maybe you like the look of them too. I offer the method purely for your interest and consideration.
Word to the wise: In recent years it has proved profitable to lay horses priced at 5/2 or less at Royal Ascot, taking advantage of overbet horses and short-priced favourites.
Now, I'm waiting patiently.....
And now there are just a few days to go. I can't wait. For the duration of the Royal Ascot meeting I'll be looking to turn a profit by waiting until just before the off and laying horses that look set to go off at 5/2 or less.
If this year's Royal meeting is anything like the last two - and, as usual with the horses, there are no guarantees - then the racing will be so competitive that the short prices about many of the more fancied animals will be prove to be market overestimations of their true ability and chances.... And, that really would be the business!
Until next time, be lucky.
6th June 2008
Good afternoon, friends,
Tomorrow is the first Saturday in June and that can mean only one thing - its Derby day at Epsom Downs and a new three-year old middle-distance champion will be crowned!
Where the biggest races are concerned I like to enter into the spirit of things and provide you with a briefing - highlighting some of the more important statistics, patterns and angles which might help inform your thinking when you come to make your own selections for the race. So, without further ado....
- Use price as a guide to split the field....
- Three races likely to produce this year's Derby winner....
- Some key trends it could pay to bear in mind....
- Can we identify hype horses and hype prices?
- Where my thinking is at.... And what the gypsies say
Find the probables on the basis of price....
Fact: in the last 33 years there's only been a single winner of the Derby at an SP bigger than 14/1.
Hardly surprising really. In this age of information and communication, a horse with an entry for a classic race only has to break wind and the printing presses are rolling through the night. What isn't known about classic contenders can be comfortably accommodated on the back of a postage stamp.
Every piece of work a classic horse does on the gallops, every race it contests, and every comment made about it (by bona fide connections through to old Tom Cobley who delivers the carrots to the stable) is scrutinized, analysed and reported just about everywhere.
And the market is efficient. Every scrap of information about every runner is factored into and represented by the prices available. In other words the price about a horse tells you exactly what you need to know about its relative chances of winning - unless hype is at work (see later).
The chances of some wonder horse sneaking into the race at 20/1 whilst possessing a previously unsuspected and race-winning turn of speed are remote at best. The media microscope is too powerful. Every stable wall has ears. Every whisper finds its way into print or broadcast. Come the day of the Derby a shock result - whilst not being out of the question - is unlikely.
So it pays to use the market as our guiding light when splitting the field. In the last nine years not a single Derby winner has started at odds bigger than 7/1. But, just to be cautious, I'm going to go back to the earlier strong statistic I mentioned and make 14/1 my cut off point. Anything at 14/1 or below goes forward for consideration. Anything bigger is scratched.
This leaves me with an initial shortlist comprising the following runners: Casual Conquest, New Approach, Curtain Call, Tartan Bearer, Tajaaweed, Doctor Fremantle and King of Rome.
Word to the wise: The Derby market has proven to be an efficient guide in recent years and offers an effective method of splitting the field into probables and unlikelys.
Three races that could prove very informative....
Certain races are recognised as Derby trials and have a history of being won by the horse that subsequently wins that year's Derby.
In recent years it has paid dividends to focus on the horses winning three specific trial races run in May - the Dee Stakes at Chester, the Dante Stakes at York and the Derrinstown Stud Derby Trial at Leopardstown.
Recent Derby winners who demonstrated their credentials in the Dante are North Light, Motivator and Authorized. The Derrinstown Stud has thrown up Sinndar, Galileo and High Chaparral in recent years. And the Dee Stakes has produced two recent Derby winners in the form of Oath and Kris Kin.
Given the way the winners of these specific trial races have dominated proceedings over the last ten years it would be folly to ignore the trio of winners coming out of these races this year. So pay special mind to Tajaaweed (Dee Stakes), Tartan Bearer (Dante) and Casual Conquest (Derrinstown Stud) when you come to look at the race yourself.
Word to the wise: History can teach us how best to negotiate the future and recent Derby history suggests the winner is most likely to come from one of three trial races.
Key trends and angles which point the way....
Of the last 15 Derby winners 14 had won their most recent start. Even the one Derby winner that failed to win on it's previous start, Sir Percy, might be forgiven his aberration given that he came 2nd in that year's renewal of the 2000 Guineas and was beaten only by the brilliant George Washington - a horse that ran like it was on fire that day.
Runners on my shortlist who measure up to this trend are Casual Conquest, Curtain Call, Doctor Fremantle, Tartan Bearer and Tajaaweed.
The last ten winners of the Derby had run no more than five times before contesting the race at Epsom. Two horses on our shortlist, New Approach and Curtain Call, fail this test having had 7 runs and 6 runs respectively.
Word to the wise: Past trends indicate that this year's winner will have won last time out and raced no more than 5 times.
Is there evidence of hype at the head of the market?
The Derby is one of those races that attracts the one-or-two times a year punter - and that kind of punter is swayed by what the papers and the TV put in front of him.
Remember too that 3yo horses are relatively unknown. The horses contesting the Derby are lightly raced and still to exhibit their preferences and the extent of their potential. In the absence of observed fact, punters rely more on speculation, analysis and expert opinion than might the case in races for older, well-known horses.
In short, where the Derby is concerned, the horses punters hear and read most about are those they back. That is my belief. The upshot is that prices about those are driven down to the point where the horse becomes overvalued and a bad bet.
I believe that two horses in this year's Derby fit this mould. I may be wrong. Theories are theories and nothing more. But my feeling is that both Curtain Call and New Approach are as short as they are in the market partly because they have received more press coverage than other runners in the race.
My methodology is quick and dirty - but I think you'll see where I'm coming from. I ran a test on the Racing Post website and checked how many times in the last 12 months each of the horses on my shortlist had appeared in print in the pages of the Racing Post.
The results were as follows: Casual Conquest (62), Curtain Call (139), Doctor Fremantle (60), Tajaaweed (52), Tartan Bearer (67), King of Rome (36) & New Approach (391).
I believe both New Approach and Curtain Call have been embedded in the public mind owing to the volume of press coverage they have received over and beyond the other runners in the race. I believe too that it is this familiarity which has led a large proportion of the public to back the horses and drive their prices down.
The bottom line is this: I wouldn't consider backing either runner because their current prices overvalue their true chances of winning.
It's interesting to note that the same two horses failed on one or both of the two key trends I mentioned earlier - winning last time out (New Approach) and number of career runs (New Approach and Curtain Call).
Word to the wise: Hype distorts the market. The public's familiarity with a horse can drive its price down to a point where the horse becomes a bad value bet - where its price overvalues its true chances of winning.
My picks.... And what the gypsies say
I'm siding with Michael Stoute's runners - Tartan Bearer and Doctor Fremantle.
During an audio interview on the Sporting Life website this week, Stoute raised doubts about his third runner, Tajaaweed, getting the trip.
Whilst Casual Conquest looks a worthy favourite for the race, I never seem to be able to bring myself to back the jolly. But it would be no great surprise if Dermot Weld's colt had me ruing this personal trait once again come 4.15 on Saturday... especially in light of what I'm going to tell you next...
Gypsy tradition has it that the name of the Derby winner mysteriously appears, handwritten in chalk, on a well outside the Amato public house in Epsom on the Sunday before the race. The prediction has apparently proved profitable to follow - nailing the winner seven times in the last twelve years.
I made a nuisance of myself this morning and called the pub to find out what is written this year. According to the gypsies this year's Derby will be won by Casual Conquest.
Until next time, be lucky.
|
