|
5th May 2010
Good afternoon, friends,
In today's Horse Racing Focus....
- Hang tight - its Chester....
- Know the score with the draw....
- The names and faces that matter....
Hang tight - its Chester....
Today is the first day of the traditional 3-day May meeting at the
Roodee in Chester - a meeting that plays host to a number of big
races including the Cheshire Oaks (Today 2.15), the Chester Cup
(Today 2.45), the Group 3 Chester Vase (Thursday 2.45) and the Group
3 Dee Stakes (Friday 2.15).
The thing that makes Chester such a great spectacle is the
configuration of the course - a feature which also serves to offer
the discerning punter some angles of attack in specific races.
Chester is the smallest racecourse of note in the country and is
just a tick over 1 mile in circumference. The track is left-handed,
flat, and tight and has a short run in from the final bend to the
finish of just 230 yards.
It's the kind of track that plenty of horses simply are not suited
to - particularly the long-striding galloping types who need long
straights and sweeping bends to help them build up to and maintain
optimum speed.
Chester is suited to nippier, agile types - some of which have come
to be seen over the yards as 'Chester specialists' - horses like
Cheshire Prince, Circuit Dancer, Dhaular Dhar, Green Manalishi,
Invincible Force, Lucayan Dancer, Maraahel and Prelude all of which
won at least 3 races on the quirky Cheshire course.
Know the score with the draw....
Given the nature of the Chester course - with the 5-furlong and 6-
furlong races run around two left-handed bends, races over 7
furlongs and 7 furlongs 122 yards run around 3 bends and races over
the extended 9 furlongs taking in 4 bends - it's pretty evident that
the draw is going to play a huge part in the outcome of many races.
This is particularly the case with the races over shorter distances
where early position is key and where race time is so short there's
little or no time for jockeys to overcome the disadvantages of
racing on the wrong part of the track (the 5 furlong races are done
and dusted in just a shade over 60 seconds).
Here's the lowdown on what you need to know about the draw for the
shorter races:
-
5 furlongs - I looked closely at the last 79 races over 5
furlongs (all races since 2003) and it's blindingly clear that, in
races contested by between 8 and 14 runners (most common), it will
pay you to narrow you focus to horses running out of stalls 1 to
5. Stall 1 has a 31.5% strike rate. Stall 2 has a 17% strike rate
and the next 3 stalls between 11% and 12.2% apiece. Higher stalls
win with considerably less frequency. Don't back a horse running out
of stall 12 or higher - 58 horses have tried and none have managed
to win when drawn so wide over the minimum trip. Note for layers:
Not many horses go off at 4/1 or less when drawn bigger than 3 in a
5f sprint at Chester. But when they do it is worth taking note.
Since 2003 11 horses have tried - none have won.
-
6 furlongs - Stalls 1 and 2 are the nuts hand at this trip.
Out of 32 races since 2003 18 have been won by horses coming out of
one of these stalls. Runners from stall 10 or higher are 2 wins from
78 runners - and short price horses drawn so wide should be looked
at as potential lays on the win and place exchange markets.
-
7 furlongs 2 yards - Stall 1 is not such a good draw at this
trip - only 7.4% of the 54 horses running out of this stall have
triumphed since 2003. Focus instead on stalls 2 to 7 which have
produced 45 of the 54 race winners. Look to oppose runners from
Stall 8 or higher where the record since 2003 is just 7 winners from
227 runners. Note: Despite the fact that the 2nd 7 furlong start at
Chester is set only a further 120 yards back up the course - that
extra distance appears to be important. The results of my draw
analysis for the 7 furlong 122 yard races are inconclusive.
The names and faces that matter....
Certain trainers seem to enjoy Chester and have developed the knack
of preparing winners at this meeting year-on-year.
Aidan O'Brien is one. He didn't used to send horses to Chester - and
I think I'm right when I say that he only did on the advice of
Kieran Fallon back when he was Ballydoyle's number one pilot. He's
sent 21 runners in recent years and 7 have won - posting a 30+ point
profit for punters.
Barry Hills has sent 12 winners to this meeting since 2003 - from 78
runners in total. Plenty of winners but the market is wise and Hills
runners show a level stakes loss for punters who follow his runners
blind. It pays to be selective. 9 of his winners were in races over
trips of 1 mile or less. Only one winner wasn't ridden by Michael
Hills or Richard Hills. 7 of the 12 winners were 3-year-olds. 8
winners were in non-handicap events.
Sir Michael Stoute has sent 14 winners up to Chester's May meeting
since 2003 - and following his horses has proven profitable to the
tune of 14 points. As ever, to maximize returns, it pays to be
selective. Look outside the handicap events - 13 of Stoute's winners
were in non-handicap events. 8 of the winners were 3-year-olds. 12
of the winners were contesting races at 1m25+. The 1m2f races really
appear to have whetted Stoute's whistle over the year - 9 of his May
Chester winners were running at 1m2f.
Watch out to for E J Alston runners. He's only had 14 runners at the
meeting in recent years - but 4 of them have won. All 4 winners were
in 5f events. Alston runners show a profit of 15 points over the
years.
Graham Gibbons (4/17), John Egan (8/55) and Phillip Robinson (6/30)
are riders to note at this meeting. Between them their mounts show a
50+ point profit for punters since 2003. Look for Robinson on
Michael Jarvis runners. B A McMahon and J J Quinn have provided the
Gibbons winners in previous years - all winners coming over 5f to
6f. Egan you have to play by ear - his winners come from all over
the board with no rhyme or reason I can decipher.
Hope this briefing helps you find yourself a few decent bets.
Until next time, be lucky.
13th May 2010
Good afternoon, friends,
In today's Horse Racing Focus....
- Take a light slap or a heavy blow....
- What happens when you lay really low?
Take a light slap or a heavy blow....
Regular readers of this column will know that I like to lay horses
on the exchanges - and that the majority of my methods involve
identifying horses that can be layed at prices of 4/1 or less.
It doesn't take any fresh-faced exchange user long to figure out
that where laying horses is concerned - focusing your efforts on
the horses priced up the shortest is the way to go. And it is
certainly the least painful.
If you back a 33/1 shot to the tune of £1 then you get the £33 if
the horse wins and the bookie wins your £1 if it loses. When you
lay a horse on the exchanges you are effectively adopting the role
of the bookmaker. You are opposing a horse (laying it) rather than
supporting it (backing it). You get the £1 if the horse loses and
you have to shell out the £33 if the horse bucks market expectation
and wins.
Getting caught out laying a winning horse at 33/1 totally wipes out
the fruits of 32 successful earlier lays (and that's the best case
scenario). Get caught out a couple of times (and it happens) and
the old cheeks start to sting a bit.
As a layer you're going to get it wrong. And when you do you want
your liabilities to be as minimal as is reasonably possible. Laying
a 3/1 winner still hurts. That's 3 points down the swanee - the
proceeds of 3 successful lays (minus commission) - the equivalent
of a light slap on a cold morning. It isn't the concussive blow of
a blunt instrument that paying out on a 25/1 shot represents.
Where the subject of laying horses is concerned the most common
question I'm asked goes something like this: 'Why don't you just
lay odds-on shots?'
I can see how the question arises. Focusing purely on the odds-on
shots can seem appealing. It reduces liabilities bet per bet.
You're never in a position where you can lose more money than
you're set to gain. It appears like it might be a sweet deal. But
does it pay? Can you twist a worthwhile profit out of it? The
answer is No.
What happens when you lay really low?
Let's have a look at what odds-on shots have achieved as a group on
the turf in Britain over the last few seasons.
| Year |
Runners |
Wins |
WSR% |
| 2003 |
624 |
366 |
58.65 |
| 2004 |
442 |
252 |
57.01 |
| 2005 |
346 |
192 |
55.49 |
| 2006 |
444 |
259 |
58.33 |
| 2007 |
400 |
230 |
57.30 |
| 2008 |
468 |
272 |
58.12 |
| 2009 |
461 |
269 |
58.35 |
| 2010 |
52 |
26 |
50.00 |
That's pretty conclusive. Approaching 60% of odds-on shots win
their races. What about the profits? Were there any? No - on SPs
the figures show negligible profits for some of the seasons. But
that's more than wiped out when you take into account that on
occasions you'll be laying on the exchanges at odds slightly bigger
than SP and paying an exchange commission of up to 5% on all your
successful lays.
Maybe a bit more selectivity is what's needed here? Maybe we need
to find a sub-group of odds-on shots that don't win quite so
frequently?
How about if we just focus on 2-year-old odds on shots? 2-year olds
are young horses, still learning the trade, prone to mistakes,
unpredictable - and often over-hyped by pundits and punters who see
the next wonder horse emerging at every turn. Is this a good group
to oppose at short-prices? 1338 2-year-olds have been sent off at
odds-on since the beginning of the 2003 season. 772 of them won at
a strike rate of 57.7% - and produced no significant, if any,
profit.
How about 2-year-olds over 5 furlongs? Not all 2-year-olds are
sprinters. Many will be at their best in later years over longer
trips. But they will still often run over 5 furlongs at 2. Do these
types go off at odds-on? Does the market miss a trick and over-
support 2-year-olds not suited to the minimum trip. Not on the
figures. 56.9% of odds-on 2-year-old runners over 5f win their
races - and produce no profit for layers.
Okay. What about odds-on 2-year olds over 7f and beyond - the kind
of trips that provide a test of stamina for a 2-year-old? Maybe the
market gets these types of races wrong and consistently over-bets
horses that shine over shorter distances but can't subsequently
step up to trips as a 2-year-old. It's worth a look - but the
results are getting predictable. 57.8% of 2-year-olds sent off at
odds-on over 7f+ win their races - and produce no profit for
layers.
What about focusing on odds-on shots that have been off the
racecourse for 6 weeks or more? Plenty of these types are likely to
be short of peak fitness and in need of a run. The short price
about them might have more to do with past achievements than
current race-readiness? How does this group perform on the stats?
Not many horses are backed in to odds-on when returning to the
course off a 6 week break. Just 25 such runners have gone to post
since 2003 - but 18 of them won at 72% and produced no profit for
layers.
Do the top jockeys get over-bet? Does the wider market over-bet
their rides? Are some horses backed into short-prices more because
of who is onboard rather than their true chances based on their
bare ability? It doesn't look like it - Dettori, Moore, Spencer,
Fallon, Hughes and the like all win on odds-on shots at least 50%
of the time and produce no profit for layers.
How about the lesser lights of the weighing room? They might draw
quite so much of the racing media's attention but you can get your
fingers burnt underestimating them. For example, Joe Fanning, Paul
Hanagan, Martin Dwyer, Richard Hills, Michael Hills and Phillip
Robinson all get their odds-on shots home in 1st place at least 55%
of the time - and in some cases well over 60% of the time. It is
not profitable to lay their odds-on rides.
I could keep on going. Whichever way I look at it I can't find a
way of laying odds-on shots for profit on the exchanges. And I'm
not sure it's worth the effort involved trying. My focus is better
employed in other areas - on alternative price bands and different
groups and sub-groups of horses which can be laid consistently to
produce long-term profit. I'd suggest that yours is too. I hope
that answers the question.
Until next time, be lucky.
20th May 2010
Good afternoon, friends,
In today's Horse Racing Focus....
- The young and the strong step up....
- The man with the knack....
- Speed figures identify the contenders....
The young and the strong step up....
June lies just a few days down the road. It's the time of year when
stamina-laden 3-year-olds step-up to the 2 mile trip for the first
time and shake up the established order of things in the staying
division.
I spent part of this week analysing what happened during this period
in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 - hoping to learn something I can
use to my advantage over the next couple of months.
235 three-year-old horses contested a race over 2 miles or further
during the time-frames under review - 24 of them relished the step-
up in trip and registered a win. I wondered if a study of this
exclusive group might reveal something we can use to identify the 3-
year-olds most likely to win at 2m+ over the next few weeks? It
certainly can't hurt.
The man with the knack....
The first thing that stands out when looking at this group of 24
winners is that Mark Johnston is something of a master when it comes
to prepping a 3-year-old to win over 2m+ at this time of year. He
trained 7 of the 24 winners - 29%.
To place that figure into a little more perspective - John Dunlop
was the only other trainer who contributed more than 1 winner to the
list (he won over 2m+ with Last Flight in 2007 and Swingkeel in
2008).
To keep on repeating the same trick year on year, Johnston is either
blessed with jamminess or he's genuinely developed the knack
required to identify, target and prepare young horses for successful
tilts at extreme trips (2 miles is a real test of stamina for a flat
runner). 7 from 24 sounds more like knack than luck to me and over
the next 2 months his 3-year-olds are of significant interest when
attempting 2-mile trips.
I've identified a couple of the Johnston string that we might want
to look out for in the entries. I'll tell you more about them in a
moment... but first...
Some pointers on filtration....
As I said earlier, 235 three-year-old horses contested a race over 2
miles or further during the time-frames under review. 211 of them
didn't win their races. It's not a number we can afford to ignore.
We don't want to be backing losers. We're going to hit a few bumps
in the road - that's inevitable. But we need to do as much as we can
to minimize our contact with those 3yos that don't win 2m+ races.
We need to figure out ways of filtering them out of the equation.
You'll recall that exclusive group of 24 winners I was talking about
earlier (those 3-year-olds that won over 2m+ in June or July). Close
examination of those horses revealed some interesting similarities:
-
Every single one of those 24 winners was appearing on a
racecourse less than 6 weeks after its previous run. The 3-year-olds
we are most interested in are those which have recently advertised
their fitness and well-being on course. We can avoid horses which
have been off-track for 42 days or more (6 weeks). The evidence
suggests they will need the run.
-
23 of the 24 winners carried weights no heavier than 9-1 and
no lighter than 8-0. Plenty ran off weights either side of this
admittedly wide band - but were either too weighted up or simply not
good enough to win.
-
19 of the 24 winners were fancied or respected by the market -
being sent off at SPs no bigger than 7/1.
-
20 of the 24 had raced no more than 7 times before scoring at
the 2m+ trip.
One, some or all of these filters could be used to measure how
closely a future runner resembles the profile of a past winner.
Those horses which simply don't measure up to the profile can be
discarded as betting propositions.
The need for speed....
Horses suited to 2 mile events tend to produce better ratings (form
or speed) with each incremental step up in trip. I wondered if 3-
year-olds ready to win at 2 miles might already have deposited the
clues we need in the formbook.
I went back to our group of 24 winners and took a look at their
ratings. It wasn't as conclusive as I would have liked - but 12 of
the 24 had earned speed ratings in excess of 100 over 1m4f to 1m6f
prior to being stepped up in trip to 2m.
Horses earning 100+ figures can be considered the fastest youngsters
operating at trips just below the 2 mile mark. It's not a bad group
to focus on. And it's an easy group to identify.
So far this year 29 3-year-old horses have earned speed ratings of
100+ when running in races at 1m4f or further - and would be of
significant interest if and when they are stepped up to 2 miles.
Among them are the Barry Hills trio - Park View, Critical Moment and
Sharaayeen. John Dunlop has Dream Spinner and Awsaal. Two Mark
Johnston runners appear in this list - Corsica and Green Lightning.
The biggest speed rating awarded to a 3-year-old over 12f+ so far
this season is 113 - clocked by Alrasm from the Michael Jarvis yard.
Clive Cox's Averroes clocked 111. Michael Stoute's Maxim Gorky
scored a 110 in early May. Ted Spread (110) trained by Mark
Tompkins and David Wachman's Icon Dream (109) make up the remainder
of the top-5.
Until next time, be lucky.
|
