Catalyst $1.10

[Hesi]

Could have at least opened at $1.30, $1.10 is Winx and Black Caviar territory, and Winx won 33 on end and BC all 25 against the best Aus had.

 

[Stevie Nicks Off]

You can make a lot of money by getting the quinella 

[Hesi]

Betting sites offshore opened Catalyst a lot more than $1.10.  Even now, most have him at 1.30 -1.40

[PWJ]

We are banking on a short priced double for us at Tamworth today:

Race 1 : Total Recall - Animal Kingdom first starter who has been given time and trialled well

Race 4 : Free Rider - Another AK which we have gone out west with to secure that maiden win. probably the better chance.

Small fish are sweet if you like 'em

[PWJ]

urrrghhh - I hope no one read that previous post much less backed it ! beaten at Tamworth, still there's always Qirindi or Coonabarrabran or Coonamble or Louth or.....

[Hesi]

CATALYST OVERCOMES SLOW START IN GROUP 3

January 25, 2020 5:36 pm.

AAP

Boom New Zealand three-year-old Catalyst has shown he can be a force in Melbourne, overcoming a sluggish start to win a Group Three race at Ellerslie.

Second favourite for next month’s Australian Guineas, Catalyst missed the start and was a clear last until the home turn in Saturday’s Mr Tiz Trophy (1200m).

But when Troy Harris asked for the acceleration that has carried Catalyst to four stakes wins through the spring, the star gelding answered the call.

Catalyst cruised past his rivals and stretched out to win by 2-1/2 lengths under hands and heels.

His trainer Clayton Chipperfield confirmed Melbourne would be the next stop for the winner of six of his seven starts with the Group Three C S Hayes (1400m) on February 15 his first Australian mission.

“That was heart-stopping,” Chipperfield said. “I thought we were in a heap of trouble, but what a turn of foot he’s got.

“The amount of ground he was able to make up in a short space of time, it’s just unbelievable.

“He’ll take plenty of improvement out of this as we head towards Australia. But we’ll be putting the hood back on. He can’t afford to fall out of the gates like that over there.”

Harris put Catalyst’s slow start down to the distraction of a horse playing up in a neighbouring gate.

“I was never worried, I always knew he was going to pick them up,” he said. “It’s unreal riding a horse like him – he’s a machine.”

Run To Perfection, fourth behind Catalyst in the 2000 Guineas, finished second with filly Bavella third.

Queensland star Alligator Blood remains the $4 favourite for the Australian Guineas with Catalyst at $4.50.

[Globederby19]

On 1/23/2020 at 3:43 PM, PWJ said:

urrrghhh - I hope no one read that previous post much less backed it ! beaten at Tamworth, still there's always Qirindi or Coonabarrabran or Coonamble or Louth or.....

Taree??

[Hesi]

I see consideration is being given to aiming him for the HB triple crown next season.

Full credit to Dick Karreman if this does happen, a real boost for NZ racing, especially if he does well in Aus(C S hayes, Australian Guineas, All Star Mile)

[Freda]

Would be fantatastic,  he's an excitement machine for sure.

[VC!]

Catalyst’ could possibly run in the triple crown then come to Aus and be aimed at the Golden Eagle on Oct 31, a race for 4yr olds only worth 7.5 million, as a gelding this would be the race you would aim him for, you only get 1 crack at the Golden Eagle and that’s when you are 4 years old, also 10% of the prize money goes to a charity of the winning connections choice.

The Golden Eagle is over 1500mtrs so the other option would be the Cox Plate

 

[Hesi]

I guess there are a lot of ifs with the horse

How many have ventured to Aus and come home with their tail between  their legs.  In the event that does become the case then that HB triple crown is a good option

Aus is packed  with many hardened group horses, when are people going to start understanding you can't  go over there  with what appears a top horse and sweep all before you

Also, as was shown with Melody  Belle, you can't give the top horses  over there,  big starts and expect to run them down, like Catalyst did on Sat

Superb sectionals, but only a Winx can keep running  those times 

[curious]

1 hour ago, VvD said:

What I'm curious about is how could anyone rate this fella a 25% or less chance of winning that race last Saturday.  The proven ability, the very nice lead-up trial, the quality of the field??

The $1.10 (91% chance) was too short but surely he was at worst a 50-60% chance of winning?

 

Have you been taking lessons from Thommo in post-race assessment?

[London Trader]

Must have done a roaring business on the exchange too Curious!

[curious]

4 hours ago, VvD said:

I accept that my question had an element of "benefit of hindsight" to it, but Blind Freddy (and 90% of racing enthusiasts) wouldn't require hindsight to tell you this guy was at least a 60% chance of winning this race. 

It was a genuine question.  Hesi is seeking enlightenment here on different rating methods/systems and I'm interested to understand what data and analysis you would use to rate him only a 25% chance of winning.

In future I'm happy to question ratings before the event if that would make it less adversarial or offensive to you!?

That's fine. I suggest you stick with blind Freddy. I agree that in this case the horse way outperformed my assessment. However, I was never going to back him at $1.10 whether I rated him as a 20% or a 90% chance. What I know  is that about 25% of my assessed 25% chances win. That's all I need to know.

Edited January 29, 2020 by curious

[curious]

Yes. You are quite right VvD. If I lay bet which would have been justified based on my assessment I'd have got a hiding and also as I noted elsewhere having him assessed at around 22% meant that all other runners were at some value and I also could have backed any of them and missed. However, the way I do my assessment relies on previous performance that is actually on the record. In this case, using that same method his performance on Saturday was 6 lengths better than any previous run and 8 lengths better than my assessment. That was predicted by you and other assessment methods that predict improvement, partly based on trial performance and other factors that I don't consider. If I'd had a bet it would have been Bavella. Run to Perfection was my third rated.

Since we have a theme here of retrospective analysis, I just relooked at that race with Catalyst rated based on my rating of his actual performance and all other runners as they were. I then have him at $1.80, about a 55% chance. More in line with what you suggest.

Edited January 29, 2020 by curious

[Hesi]

The more people that put up their thoughts and analysis pre-race, the better, as far as I am concerned, we don't want to get like the other channel with all the theoretical BS, post race.  I see the 'new' section on Gallops selections still remains empty after about 3 months

Most of the betting agencies around the world, opened up Catalyst a lot longer than the NZ TAB, I see from the other channel, that Neds supposedly opened him at $1.70.

I guess the NZ TAB in opening him so short, were saying, we don't want you to bet on him, and don't put him in your multis, because at $1.10, it ain't worth the risk, for the return.  In the Catalyst case they(NZ TAB) were right, but it was a defensive play

[Globederby19]

23 hours ago, curious said:

That's fine. I suggest you stick with blind Freddy. I agree that in this case the horse way outperformed my assessment. However, I was never going to back him at $1.10 whether I rated him as a 20% or a 90% chance. What I know  is that about 25% of my assessed 25% chances win. That's all I need to know.

Interesting. So a one in four strike rate for horses assessed at 25% to win. Does that keep you on the right side of the ledger and what are the average starting odds for that quarter winning percentage. 

[Hesi]

The other point you have made in the past Barry, which i was going to post last night, then fell asleep.

How many punters think they will not lose -100%

How many punters do actually lose - I don't know, maybe 98%, it is why betting agencies exist and thrive.

So, if you want to make money, you have to do what the majority(98%), don't do, which I guess it what you are saying Barry

I think you Mardi, put up the success rates(returns), for backing a range of different priced horses under or around the $2 mark......it was not very good.

Back the 3 hotpots on Karaka night at say $10K each, which i presume a lot were doing, the way the price was dropping, and you leave with a $3K hole in your pocket

 

[mardigras]

The other aspect to this is that you can't retrospectively look at a single race after the event and state what the chance of a runner was, before the event, just based on the betting or the outcome.

If Barry puts up a horse paying 20s, you can't say whether it had better than a 5% chance just because it wins. It doing that consistently in line with chance that helps support the notion.

So you need to consider the horses put up over a longer period to determine whether the pricing methods stack up.

Which is what Barry has shown. 

Catalyst winning may be that it had a 10% chance. (I'm not saying that is the case).

To claim a pricing is actually wrong and out of the ballpark, is illogical, and reserved for the domain of those that don't understand chance. It could be that others have a different opinion on the chance - clearly that is the case given the public backed the horse at the odds they did. But no one can claim what the chance was pre race, they can only offer opinion on it.

Public opinion is clearly inaccurate as to chance. Otherwise punters would be winning overall. They don't.

I haven't priced that race but might do so on my return to NZ. But my price would also just be my opinion.

Barry's and curious' prices were their opinion. BGP had a different opinion. I don't know whose opinion was right. Maybe none of them.

Some will simply never grasp this.

 

 

[curious]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Barry's and curious' prices were their opinion. BGP had a different opinion. I don't know whose opinion was right. Maybe none of them.

Some will simply never grasp this.

 

 

Exactlty  Unless you could run the identical race 100 times, you can not say which assessment of chance was accurate.

[curious]

5 hours ago, barryb said:

 Those form indicators are left out by the likes of us because LONG TERM they do not for us produce a $, often they are the likes of down in grade, blinkers on, nothing over 59kg, winning a trial, 3yr olds after xmas, gelded, drawn inside, & so on. All of the previous are subjective and can not be quantified so the likes of us don't factor them in.

You left out unlucky runs and covering extra ground.

[curious]

15 hours ago, Globederby19 said:

Interesting. So a one in four strike rate for horses assessed at 25% to win. Does that keep you on the right side of the ledger and what are the average starting odds for that quarter winning percentage. 

It only keeps me on the right side of the ledger if I am backing 25% chances at say $6 or better and if that sub-group is still winning at about a 1 in 4 rate. If not, then the market assessment may be more accurate than mine. Sorry, I don't have the data on NZ racing to answer your other question but it doesn't really matter to me what that average is.

[Globederby19]

8 hours ago, curious said:

It only keeps me on the right side of the ledger if I am backing 25% chances at say $6 or better and if that sub-group is still winning at about a 1 in 4 rate. If not, then the market assessment may be more accurate than mine. Sorry, I don't have the data on NZ racing to answer your other question but it doesn't really matter to me what that average is.

Ok, lets assume you ARE backing those 25% chances and that sub group is not winning at about a 1 in 4 rate. Do you then tweak your market assessment based on historical data or ride out the losing streak until it corrects itself . I appreciate your responses as I am fascinated by the  time and effort, not to mention the intelligence behind wagering in this manner. I would put Barry and  Mardigras in the same boat.

[curious]

11 hours ago, Globederby19 said:

Ok, lets assume you ARE backing those 25% chances and that sub group is not winning at about a 1 in 4 rate. Do you then tweak your market assessment based on historical data or ride out the losing streak until it corrects itself . I appreciate your responses as I am fascinated by the  time and effort, not to mention the intelligence behind wagering in this manner. I would put Barry and  Mardigras in the same boat.

Barry and Mardi may be better equipped to comment GD. For me I'd be re-examining my assessment because obviously in the situation you raise, it's not accurate enough. I may do that initially by examining historic data but I then always test prospectively. That's because I can not apply any more subjective decisions to historic data. Not much point riding it out if I have the assessment too far out. I'll just keep losing.

Edited January 31, 2020 by curious

[mardigras]

12 hours ago, Globederby19 said:

Ok, lets assume you ARE backing those 25% chances and that sub group is not winning at about a 1 in 4 rate. Do you then tweak your market assessment based on historical data or ride out the losing streak until it corrects itself . I appreciate your responses as I am fascinated by the  time and effort, not to mention the intelligence behind wagering in this manner. I would put Barry and  Mardigras in the same boat.

I do a cycle of confirming that my assessments of chance mirror success rates. But only every couple of years would I consider changing anything. That's mostly due to wanting sufficient data to determine that the results are clearly trending away from expected.

I maintain a complex set of track based ratings (which I use to compare performance on one track against a performance on a different track). If I found things were out of alignment, I would spend weeks reviewing the results of races on tracks against my track benchmarks.

When I've done this, it has shown to occur due to my track assessments being out of date. That happens when a track undergoes significant changes requiring my benchmarks to be upgraded. So when a track is rebuilt, I continue with the original benchmarks until I have sufficient data/reason to show they have changed. It's not ideal.

The alternative would be to omit races on such tracks - that's also not ideal. But I can't predict the future as to what a massively renovated track will deliver, and unlike those on the other channel, I haven't found a way to bet after the horses have won.

If I ever find that my assessments are out and I can't attribute that to a change in the characteristics of various tracks, then I'd either give up or try and incorporate something I haven't considered yet. Such as pace/position etc. But that would be a huge undertaking.