Melbourne Spring 2020

[mardigras]

35 minutes ago, Stodge said:

Fair comment, that's a long way to the turn - at a bigger track, you might only have 400m to the turn which does make life harder.

I presume the issue is more with the way the race seems to be run - to the British observer, it's more like a French race with a crawl before a sprint down the straight. Despite that, you need a horse who gets 2400m rather than 2000m. 

No, I actually don't believe barriers to be important in my overall assessment for races nearly everywhere. Maybe you could give an example of a track/distance where you think barrier is important to help me?

There are a couple of tracks/distances I tend to steer away from, but they are few and far between - and heavily relate to gate angle and race distance. Such as the 800 metres at Ipswich generally being just a mad dash.

Edited October 29, 2020 by mardigras

[VC!]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Someone either believes Russian Camelot isn't running in the cup, or that he simply isn't up to the hype. Bets being taken quite a bit between 50s and 100s overnight. And plenty at the 20s to 50s.

On betfair $1375 was invested(laid) on him at an average price of 20s in the last 12 hours. Which includes the general 12s and 13s that he was being bet at early on during that time.  Might not be much in the scheme of things, but some people would have been scared to take the bets thinking he must be out.

That’s a little suspicious to say the least, it’s like they wanted to get the horse laid at all costs even though the market isn’t suspended until 16-30 tomorrow 

 

[mardigras]

36 minutes ago, VC! said:

That’s a little suspicious to say the least, it’s like they wanted to get the horse laid at all costs even though the market isn’t suspended until 16-30 tomorrow 

 

O'Brien has responded to the situation and 'claimed' that there is no issue and the plan is to run.

[curious]

Interesting. Not sure what to think. I was advised overnight that he was out.

[Stodge]

22 hours ago, mardigras said:

No, I actually don't believe barriers to be important in my overall assessment for races nearly everywhere. Maybe you could give an example of a track/distance where you think barrier is important to help me?

A lot depends on the number of runners. A low draw at Chester is a huge advantage given how tight the course is but if it's a 5-runner race it doesn't matter as much as it does with a 20-runner race.

[mardigras]

1 hour ago, Stodge said:

A lot depends on the number of runners. A low draw at Chester is a huge advantage given how tight the course is but if it's a 5-runner race it doesn't matter as much as it does with a 20-runner race.

For sure - but that is picking a track somewhat like (but even smaller) than Ipswich in Australia.

And when I say I don't think barriers are a big impact, I'm not suggesting that overall, an inside barrier may not have a small advantage. The issue is assessing what that advantage is to a specific horse - if any.

And more importantly than that assessment, is the impact on price of the supposed advantage compared to the impact on chance of that supposed advantage.

So continuing on the discussion, how do I adjust the chance of the runners at Chester when they have drawn 5 or less - and how do I adjust the chance of the runners at Chester when they have drawn 12+ (for example)? Do I just guess? When I bet, contrary to what most punters do, I am not looking to identify the winner of the race. I'm looking to back the horse(s) that win at a greater rate than their price suggests.

So at Chester, if I think the horse drawn 1 is a 40% chance - and is paying $2.40. I won't bet on it. And I'd expect that 40% of the time it will win. If I think the horse drawn 12 is a 40% chance - and is paying $6, I will likely bet on it (regardless of the draw). And I'd expect that 40% of the time it will win. Now the win rate may not eventuate on that track for that barrier, but there is a lot of margin built in to cater for my assessment being out. Since I only need it to win 17% of the time (and not the 40% of the time I expect), to profit long term.

Beverley is a track in the UK that many claim to have a large draw bias. I don't believe there is any material advantage there, over any distance. But the odds will reflect the punters view of the bias. And I'm happy that that is what happens as that is where a large part of my margin comes in (in a similar way with what happens based on punters views on weight).

Moonee Valley is an Australian track that many believe to have a draw bias. A small track with a short straight (187m from memory). It's another one I don't believe shows a bias on draw.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by mardigras

[Stodge]

I think track draw bias has reduced a lot in recent years possibly due to track management or changes in stall positioning.

When I attended Lingfield regularly, there was often a huge bias to being drawn up against the stands rail in the shorter races (1000-1500m) but that has eased somewhat with time.

The term "the golden highway" used to be regularly used for strips of ground which ran faster than other areas and that was often due to irrigation or to where people used the course as a jogging track.

Another example is when rails are moved to provide fresh ground during longer meetings - being drawn on the unused ground was an advantage. 

These aren't "general" biases but specific biases which can be noted from stalls positioning and/or alignment.

These biases can also affect HOW a race is run - you might get wind conditions or track conditions which expressly favour front runners or a track bias which means getting over to one side or the other in wet conditions is a huge advantage (at Brighton, Epsom and Goodwood where the course cambers down to the rails it is a huge advantage on soft ground to be on the "other side" i.e: at the top of the slope where the ground is drier).

I'd argue awareness of the specific biases that can operate on a particular day can be as influential as the more general biases.

[mardigras]

21 minutes ago, Stodge said:

I think track draw bias has reduced a lot in recent years possibly due to track management or changes in stall positioning.

When I attended Lingfield regularly, there was often a huge bias to being drawn up against the stands rail in the shorter races (1000-1500m) but that has eased somewhat with time.

The term "the golden highway" used to be regularly used for strips of ground which ran faster than other areas and that was often due to irrigation or to where people used the course as a jogging track.

Another example is when rails are moved to provide fresh ground during longer meetings - being drawn on the unused ground was an advantage. 

These aren't "general" biases but specific biases which can be noted from stalls positioning and/or alignment.

These biases can also affect HOW a race is run - you might get wind conditions or track conditions which expressly favour front runners or a track bias which means getting over to one side or the other in wet conditions is a huge advantage (at Brighton, Epsom and Goodwood where the course cambers down to the rails it is a huge advantage on soft ground to be on the "other side" i.e: at the top of the slope where the ground is drier).

I'd argue awareness of the specific biases that can operate on a particular day can be as influential as the more general biases.

I'd argue those very same thoughts are also the thoughts of 90% of punters - so those thoughts are a major influence on price. And we all know how 90+% of punters get on with betting.

In nearly every thing I do, I am identifying the things that 90% of punters are not looking at - the things that affect chance but have little impact on price (or the impact on price is well beyond the impact of the element).

I don't follow rail out or track conditions favouring front runners. I believe these things have manifest themselves into punters minds, they then look for confirmation of the bias following the running of races.

I do accept that the variance in track condition across a track can have an impact on the result. I'm unaware of how to use that before the race. Again with wind, it could play a part - although for me there has only been a couple of times I'd say wind was a factor in my betting. Both times at Flemington down the straight. Both times I was wrong. Not wrong in identifying wind would play a part - wrong in identifying which horse would be majorly advantaged by it without sacrificing price.

If you are trying to identify winners, irrespective of price, identifying the group of horses that may be more suited by a supposed bias may help. To me, that same group are all having their price affected by punters believing they are advantaged due to that supposed bias.

I'd love just once, someone to tell me a) when there is a bias and b) with that knowledge, how does that affect the chance of a horse I have assessed at 20% that falls into line with that bias, and how much does it change the chance of a horse I have assessed at 25% that doesn't fall into line with that bias.

On all of the forums I have been on, I have never seen anyone provide that info yet. Or if a horse has blinkers on first time, if my assessment is 20% chance (without knowing about the blinkers), how should I alter it's chance now that I know it has blinkers on first time?

These things are all supposedly massive influencers of race outcomes. And yet all the punters commenting can't elaborate on that. Can you?

if I increase the chance of my runner, then obviously, I have to reduce the chances of all the other runners, (or collectively increase some horses chances, and decrease other horses chances). Surely it isn't just a guess every time?

 

[Midnight Caller]

First time I've bought a Racing Post in a while today. Thought this quote might amuse you guys!

'The trick in betting, I feel, is to do what bookmakers do. Which is not what they want you to do'

[mardigras]

Looks like King Of Leogrance is the one - draws barrier 18!

[curious]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Looks like King Of Leogrance is the one - draws barrier 18!

That should help the price to chance ratio.

[Stodge]

17 hours ago, mardigras said:

I'd argue those very same thoughts are also the thoughts of 90% of punters - so those thoughts are a major influence on price. And we all know how 90+% of punters get on with betting.

In nearly every thing I do, I am identifying the things that 90% of punters are not looking at - the things that affect chance but have little impact on price (or the impact on price is well beyond the impact of the element).

I don't follow rail out or track conditions favouring front runners. I believe these things have manifest themselves into punters minds, they then look for confirmation of the bias following the running of races.

I do accept that the variance in track condition across a track can have an impact on the result. I'm unaware of how to use that before the race. Again with wind, it could play a part - although for me there has only been a couple of times I'd say wind was a factor in my betting. Both times at Flemington down the straight. Both times I was wrong. Not wrong in identifying wind would play a part - wrong in identifying which horse would be majorly advantaged by it without sacrificing price.

If you are trying to identify winners, irrespective of price, identifying the group of horses that may be more suited by a supposed bias may help. To me, that same group are all having their price affected by punters believing they are advantaged due to that supposed bias.

I'd love just once, someone to tell me a) when there is a bias and b) with that knowledge, how does that affect the chance of a horse I have assessed at 20% that falls into line with that bias, and how much does it change the chance of a horse I have assessed at 25% that doesn't fall into line with that bias.

On all of the forums I have been on, I have never seen anyone provide that info yet. Or if a horse has blinkers on first time, if my assessment is 20% chance (without knowing about the blinkers), how should I alter it's chance now that I know it has blinkers on first time?

These things are all supposedly massive influencers of race outcomes. And yet all the punters commenting can't elaborate on that. Can you?

if I increase the chance of my runner, then obviously, I have to reduce the chances of all the other runners, (or collectively increase some horses chances, and decrease other horses chances). Surely it isn't just a guess every time?

 

Very often there are changes in track condition or bias which only become apparent once racing has started so it's a question of watching the earlier races as a way to what might be favoured in the later races.

I'm very keen on using track conditions and especially proven track form under those conditions - the expression "horses for courses" isn't just an aphorism. As for blinkers, there are trainers who are more successful with horses in first-time blinkers than others. In a race with no obvious edge, it can be a wildcard favouring one horse and it isn't usually reflected in the price. Does it improve the chances of the horse winning? The answer is you can't know how any horse will react to first-time blinkers - it helps some but not all.

You have tour methodology and it may be nothing I say will make any difference because the way you assess races requires on different elements. That's fine - I'm not saying one way is better than another.

If I am on track, I don't always go and look at the horses in the paddock but I will for 2-y-o or inexperienced 3-y-o as physical appearance, maturity and behaviour are all factors. I don't see the point with experienced handicappers or jumpers to be honest - If one is sweating freely and it's not a hot day that may not be relevant as it could be a mannerism. 

[mardigras]

3 hours ago, Stodge said:

Very often there are changes in track condition or bias which only become apparent once racing has started so it's a question of watching the earlier races as a way to what might be favoured in the later races.

I'm very keen on using track conditions and especially proven track form under those conditions - the expression "horses for courses" isn't just an aphorism. As for blinkers, there are trainers who are more successful with horses in first-time blinkers than others. In a race with no obvious edge, it can be a wildcard favouring one horse and it isn't usually reflected in the price. Does it improve the chances of the horse winning? The answer is you can't know how any horse will react to first-time blinkers - it helps some but not all.

You have tour methodology and it may be nothing I say will make any difference because the way you assess races requires on different elements. That's fine - I'm not saying one way is better than another.

If I am on track, I don't always go and look at the horses in the paddock but I will for 2-y-o or inexperienced 3-y-o as physical appearance, maturity and behaviour are all factors. I don't see the point with experienced handicappers or jumpers to be honest - If one is sweating freely and it's not a hot day that may not be relevant as it could be a mannerism. 

Fair enough. We all have our own approach. But I don't do subjective since I don't know how to factor in subjective. 

And things like blinkers on first time is therefore impossible to determine the impact (positive or negative or neither). And certain trainers that are more successful using them does not help me. I don't use population based stats either.

That's just me, I assess only the individual horse, no trainer or jockey stats. No stats on how x affects y 'overall'. I don't use such stats since the statistic does not change the individual horse being assessed (and probably more importantly, the stat has nothing quantifiable to do with the chance of the individual horse in a race).

I've written long on the topic previously, to the point of boredom. I usually assess around 23-24k races every year. Finding winners is no problem. I can do that with one selection around 28% of the time (well before any prices come out). Problem is, backing those winners for a year would lose me money. So I prefer to look very specifically around price versus chance - which makes me money. 

I previously punted (30+ years ago) in a fashion that mirrored many of your comments. I couldn't make any money following that approach. If you can, well done, but there won't be many of you doing that as that also mirrors the way the vast majority of punters bet.

 

[mardigras]

8 minutes ago, barryb said:

Great posts on here Mardi.

Your postings on this subject over the years reminds me of certain professions where the general population is an expert commentator.

Education & Real Estate stand out as industries like Punting that attracts expert commentary from dunces routinely, intelligent voices like yours are drowned out by the so called experts. The safety factor for you is that anyone attempting new runs back to comfort the first sign of trouble.

Yesterday I was chatting to a mate when a bet I had ran poorly, I said it ran to how I expected and he was dumbfounded as to why I backed a horse that I expected to go poor. He couldn’t grasp backing a horse I didn’t expect to win, I said I bet with my head & not my heart, it was significantly above my % chance allocated to it, so it became a bet. I lose far more bets than I win & my run of outs would deter 99% of punters, however my 27% POT for the yr suggests I get them right enough times.

I agree with that Barry - especially the part about the running back to old ways when trouble strikes. And I'm not suggesting Stodge can't or doesn't do well. Just that like you say, taking the heart out of it, and betting only with your head is something most punters simply cannot maintain.

[VC!]

On 10/29/2020 at 7:42 AM, VC! said:

 

Mardi’s big hope Ashrun he runs in the Lexus and will go very close to winning that you’ll probably get around 5s Saturday and 15s Tuesday so right now you’d be better off taking him as an all up rather than the 65s on BF 

Ashrun to me looks a bit like Russian Camelot that he’s looking for the 2 mile, 

 

Ashrun got out to 6s even a tad longer you’ll be able to get 22s at least so as an all up you end up with 132-1 compared with the 65-1 they offered on Betfair on Friday

He probably drifted because of his barrier which is irrelevant to a horse like him as he dawdles out of the barriers, he was always going to settle towards the rear regardless if he drew gate 1

Ashrun is different to Protectionist he doesn’t quite possess the same turn of foot, however it’s his last 800 which counts, he couldn’t quite get there over the 2400 of the Geelong cup and he needed every bit of the 2500 of the Lexus to secure the last spot in the cup, he’s the last horse I’ve backed to win the cup happy with the 130s look for Ashrun at about the 300 making a run

I’m all set I’ve eliminated over half the field, bring it on!!!!!

[curious]

1 hour ago, barryb said:

Great posts on here Mardi.

Your postings on this subject over the years reminds me of certain professions where the general population is an expert commentator.

Education & Real Estate stand out as industries like Punting that attracts expert commentary from dunces routinely, i

 

Exactly. I've been in the education industry for a couple of decades and what you say is quite true. Even the relatively informed population can't see the evidence. I'm currently in a personal situation related to Real Estate at the moment where everyone else is saying buy and I'm saying the market is over-priced. Sell.

[Hesi]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

Exactly. I've been in the education industry for a couple of decades and what you say is quite true. Even the relatively informed population can't see the evidence. I'm currently in a personal situation related to Real Estate at the moment where everyone else is saying buy and I'm saying the market is over-priced. Sell.

Just digressing, the market in Auckland has gone crazy.  I have some long time customers selling their property in Remuera.  They will get 4 mil!!, but if the auction runs as per others in Auckland, they will get 5 mil.....a mil loose change

[curious]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

Exactly. I've been in the education industry for a couple of decades and what you say is quite true. Even the relatively informed population can't see the evidence. I'm currently in a personal situation related to Real Estate at the moment where everyone else is saying buy and I'm saying the market is over-priced. Sell.

I admit I'm a dyed in the wool contrarian, blood in the streets, Baron Rothschild value type by nature. If there were no other factors involved, I'd be selling the over priced real estate and looking at buying under-priced airline shares with the proceeds.

 

[curious]

1 minute ago, Hesi said:

Just digressing, the market in Auckland has gone crazy.  I have some long time customers selling their property in Remuera.  They will get 4 mil!!, but if the auction runs as per others in Auckland, they will get 5 mil.....a mil loose change

Good on them. That's what they should do from a purely finanial perspective.

[mardigras]

16 minutes ago, curious said:

I admit I'm a dyed in the wool contrarian..

 

I'd say I'm pretty much in the same mould.

[Hesi]

Would never have picked it lol

Add in Barry, and you've got a great team of 3

[Hesi]

A contrarian thinker (also known as a contrarian) is someone who takes an opposite stance to popular opinion. It literally means to “be against”. This can be in any area, but it mainly applies to areas where large groups of people lead with emotion rather than logic

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Hesi said:

areas where large groups of people lead with emotion rather than logic

Which is exactly what the majority of punters do.

 

[Hesi]

Which is why I posted it.

The logic of form, can be hard to figure most of the time though.

Look at Cascadian yesterday, pretty average runs recently, previous form suggested  rain affected going would be better, but runs a superb race from last to almost pull off a win in the Kennedy Cantala

Mohaka, stepping up from 1400 to 2100 in the Feilding Cup, from a sprinting sire, yet sticks on like the mother in law to lead all the way

[pete]

27 minutes ago, Hesi said:

Would never have picked it lol

Add in Barry, and you've got a great team of 3

Make it 4.