Two-year-old Flat Debutants, Part 2

In part 1 of this series, here, I suggested that if we were looking to blindly back two-year-olds on their flat debut this season, our starting point should initially be those juveniles trained by Richard Fahey, Jessica Harrington and Ger Lyons, writes Chris Worrall. As well as that standout trio, I was also interested in those trained by Paul Cole, Eve Johnson Houghton and David Simcock, notwithstanding the reservations I highlighted about those three.

I went on to highlight in that opening piece that we may be able to eliminate some bad bets by focusing more on each trainer's runners based on a series of factors: track location, actual track, race class/distance/going, jockeys used, time of year and sex of horse.

Richard Fahey

So, if we start with our three headline acts, we can see that Richard Fahey's results with 2yo flat debutants from 2016-19 were as follows:

Closer inspection of those 381 runners showed no real bias towards either gender or for any particular reported ground conditions, but of the other five tested variables, I found (in sample size order) that those numbers included:

  • 55/363 (15.15%) for 135.66pts (+37.37%) over trips of 5 to 7 furlongs
  • 53/359 (14.76%) for 125.13pts (+34.85%) during April to September
  • 51/339 (15.04%) for 122.82pts (+36.24%) in Yorkshire, NW & Central England
  • 47/314 (14.97%) for 132.07pts (+42.06%) at Classes 4 & 5
  • 38/236 (16.10%) for 92.88pts (+39.36%) ridden by Tony Hamilton or Paul Hanagan

(all profit quoted is to Betfair Starting Price, BSP)

And when combine all those filters, we are left with...

Suggestion: back all Richard Fahey 2yo Flat debutants ridden by Tony Hamilton or Paul Hanagan at up to 7 furlongs in Class 4 or 5 races in Yorkshire, the North West or Central England during April to September.

Jessica Harrington

And now onto Jessica Harrington, whose 2016-19 stats were...

From which (in order of winners)...

  • 18/114 (15.79%) for 81.5pts (+71.49%) over trips of 5 to 7 furlongs
  • 15/122 (12.3%) for 23.28pts (+19.08%) in Leinster
  • 15/104 (14.42%) for 56.85pts (+54.67%) on ground declared as Good to Yielding or firmer
  • 15/80 (18.75%) for 80.7pts (+100.88%) during May to July
  • 13/95 (13.68%) for 26.94pts (+28.35%) with female runners

And combining trip, track location, going and time of year gives us...

             

of which the gender spilt is as follows....

The females win more often, but the males generate more profit, so I'm not really convinced we should narrow it down either way.

Suggestion: back Jessica Harrington's 2 year olds on debut in Leinster (Bellewstown, Curragh, Fairyhouse, Gowran Park, Leopardstown, Naas, Navan) during May to July at trips up to 7 furlongs and on ground described as Good to Yielding or firmer.

Ger Lyons

The final member of our top trio is Ger Lyons, who qualified on his record over the last three seasons of...

Once again, we'll subject those runners to the filtering system, where it can be noted:

  • 30/130 (23.08%) for 90.71pts (+69.78%) over trips of 6f to 1m
  • 30/125 (24%) for 95.71pts (+76.57%) during April to September
  • 29/137 (21.17%) for 76.78pts (+56.05%) on ground deemed Soft or better
  • 29/136 (21.32%) for 79.30pts (+58.31%) in Leinster and Munster
  • 28/116 (24.14%) for 79.07pts (+68.16%) when ridden by Colin Keane

and when we combine those five sets of data, we end up with a fantastic set of numbers reading...

Once again both sexes fare well as follows...

...so we'll not differentiate between the two.

Suggestion: back all Ger Lyons' 2 yo debutants ridden by Colin Keane over trips of 6f to a mile in Leinster (see above for tracks) and Munster (Cork, Killarney, Limerick, Listowel, Thurles, Tipperary) on Soft ground or better from April to September.

*

Those were the three main protagonists from part 1 of this series; combining their two-year-old flat debutants under the specified conditions brings us to 66 winners from 293 runners (22.53% SR) and 266.74pts of profit at an excellent ROI of some 91.04%.

Clearly it will be difficult to fully repeat those numbers but if they only do half as well in the next three or four years we'll still be looking at 130+ points.

*

So what of our 'second string' trio of Paul Cole, Eve Johnson Houghton and David Simcock? Are there conditions under which we might follow their juvenile debutants?

The easiest way to find out is to dive into the data, starting with...

Paul Cole

Cole's base figures with 2yo first-time starters are:

That's a small sample size so caution is advised, but they do include of note...

  • 6/35 (17.14%) for 68.1pts (+194.57%) in Classes 4 and 5
  • 6/30 (20%) for 73.1pts (+243.67%) over trips of 5 or 6 furlongs
  • 6/29 (20.69%) for 74.1pts (+255.52%) during April to July
  • 6/14 (42.86%) for 89.1pts (+636.43%) at Brighton, Leicester & Newbury
  • 5/28 (17.86%) for 31.35pts (+111.96%) in SE England
  • 3/10 (30%) for 60.92pts (+609.2%) with Raul Da Silva in the saddle

You probably don't need me to point out how Paul got all of his six original winners, but combining those first four filters gives...

Suggestion: keep an eye out for Paul Cole 2yo firsters in Class 4 or 5 races over 5 or 6 furlongs at Brighton, Leicester or Newbury from April to July, especially if Raul da Silva's on board, even if it's a big price.

Eve Johnson Houghton

Next up is Eve Johnson Houghton, whose own record during the last four seasons was...

...which, like Paul Cole previously, was a smaller than ideal sample size, but did include...

  • 8/52 (15.38%) for 141.35pts (+271.82%) excluding April and July
  • 7/62 (11.29%) for 98.02pts (+158.10%) in Classes 4 and 5
  • 7/46 (15.22%) for 106.94pts (+232.48%) over 6 or 7 furlongs
  • 6/47 (12.77%) for 120.04pts (+255.41%) in SE England
  • 6/41 (14.63%) for 88.22pts (+215.16%) ridden by Charles Bishop
  • 6/37 (16.22%) for 142.18pts (+384.26%) from female runners
  • and 5/21 (23.81%) for 42.74pts (+203.52%) on Good to Soft or Soft ground

Combining class, month, distance and going gives us...

...and despite this dozen qualifiers include 4 from 7 (57.1%) for 48.5pts (+392.7%) for Charles Bishop, 3 from 6 (50%) for 43.6pts (+726.2%) for females and 3 from 6 (50%) for 31.4pts (+524%) in the South East, there is an uneasy feel to the exclusion of April and July - I can't come up with a logical reason why the horses would fail to fire in that month. Instead, I've taken a more straightforward view...

Suggestion: Look out for Eve Johnson Houghton's Class 4 and 5 runners over 6 or 7 furlongs on Good to Soft or Soft ground. Add a bonus point if you see Charles Bishop down to ride.

David Simcock

And finally for this look at trainers who perform well with juvenile first time starters, we'll put David Simcock under the microscope, despite his sobering record last season (0 from 20). Even with that abject campaign, his four year score is...

and again we've only a small number of runners to consider, but they do include...

  • 6/31 (19.4%) for 18.65pts (+60.17%) when ridden by Jamie Spencer
  • 4/20 (20%) for 49.15pts (+245.76%) over a mile
  • 4/15 (26.7%) for 27.4pts (+182.66%) at Yarmouth
  • 3/14 (21.4%) for 23.6pts (+168.6%) for Jamie Spencer over a mile
  • 3/9 (33.3%) for 28.6pts (+317.8%) for Jamie Spencer at Yarmouth
  • 3/7 (42.9%) for 30.6pts (+437.1%) over a mile at Yarmouth
  • and 3/6 (50%) for 32.69pts Jamie Spencer over a mile at Yarmouth

Obviously the Jamie Spencer angle is interesting, especially over a mile at Yarmouth, but I feel that particular stat lends more to the excellent record the jockey and trainer have together at that venue (a story for another day, perhaps?), but as for this piece...

Suggestion: Note, but don't necessarily back, David Simcock two-year-old flat debutants.

*

All of which second team deliberation leaves us with just the Paul Cole and Eve Johnson Houghton runners, whose suggested angles combine for 11 winners from 22 runners (50% SR) and 144.84 pts (+658.6% ROI) as a juicy-looking - but less reliable based on sample size - supplement to our top trio's 66 winners from 293 runners (22.53% SR, +266.74 BSP, ROI of 91.04%).

Hopefully, we'll soon be able to "live trial" these angles. Fingers crossed and all that, but for now, thanks for reading and I'll be back with more soon.

 - CW

Update on geegeez.co.uk

Dear geegeez.co.uk reader/subscriber,

I wanted to share a quick update with you on where we are in terms of the site seeing out the current hiatus. The summary is that things are looking better than first feared, and all bar an Armageddon scenario should see our ongoing function.

Here's what's been happening:

I've reduced running costs by cutting back to a minimum: staff have kindly paused or reduced their capacity until such time as we're racing again.

I still need help with editorial content and we're still doing some development (so things will look even better, and have still more features, when we return), so there remain some non-essential expenses.

Those have been covered, give or take, by the loyalty of subscribers during this lockdown; and as a result of that we are in much better shape than I expected.

Indeed, assuming a resumption of at least two meetings a day from June, we will be absolutely fine: bloodied, but well able to continue.

At this point nobody knows when things will be back but there is some guarded optimism from BHA that racing could return somewhere between mid- and late May.

 

The rough timeline of concern here at geegeez.co.uk is as follows:

May resumption - all good

June resumption - all OK

July resumption - all OK

August resumption - just about OK

September resumption - concerning

October resumption - in trouble

 

The reality is that if we're not racing by June, some racecourses may go under as well as, quite possibly, a fair number of trainers. There is, then, a strong desire both inside racing and in the corridors of Parliament to see the industry (along with hundreds of other industries of course) sustain the least damage possible whilst contributing appropriately to the national and international efforts to combat the pandemic.

That's a verbose way of saying that others - some of them sizeable entities - will be in trouble long before geegeez.co.uk as things stand. For information, the betting on which month will see UK racing resume looks like this:

 

 

Although the overround on this - granted, novelty - market is a crippling 23.75%, there is still an implied 75% chance of racing returning before June is out (after normalising the overround to make a 100% book).

We remain in the realms of art more than science in trying to establish what next, but there are plenty of grounds to be cautiously hopeful for a late May/early June restart, perhaps earlier – though that would be best case.

If you've been wondering about geegeez.co.uk (thank you), or about racing's return more generally (me too!), I hope the above adds some colour to the situation.

In all bar a disaster scenario - the ramifications of which would render the loss of a little racing website trivial in the extreme - we'll be back better than ever before the longest day of the year.

Thank you again for your loyalty and ongoing support during what is a trying time for just about all of us.

Until next time, wishing you good health,

Matt

Two-year-old Flat Debutants, Part 1: Trainers

After reading the responses from last week's SotD overview and also checking that I wasn't duplicating anyone else's work, I'm going to kick off my series of research pieces with a fairly simple analysis of trainers to follow on the Flat with their 2 yr old debutants, writes Chris Worrall.

And the way I've approached this ahead of the 2020 season, which will hopefully be here as soon as it's safe to do so, is to look back over the previous four seasons to get a five year overview by the end of this season. With that in mind, I then applied the following criteria to the long list of trainers with such runners since 2016...

  • a minimum of 30 2yo debutants
  • a minimum strike rate of 10%
  • an A/E above 1.00
  • profit over the four years at Betfair SP
  • and profitable in at least three of the four years

Applying those filters reduces the list to a far more manageable six trainers:

Paul Cole, Richard Fahey, Jessica Harrington, Eve Johnson Houghton, Ger Lyons and David Simcock

Their collective figures, pulled from the excellent horseracebase.com, over the last four seasons look like this...

A near 15% strike rate and an ROI at Betfair SP in excess of 50% is something we can really work with, even if replicating that stratospheric level may be nigh on impossible.

The yearly breakdown since 2016 looks something (well, exactly) like this...

As you can see, 2018 wasn't quite as good for our highlighted trainers, but still profitable nonetheless. That said, the strike rate, which dipped below 10%, would have tested confidence.

We can further break down the data so see which trainers performed best in each year or, conversely, which years were best for each trainer which would lead us ultimately to the same end point.

What I can tell you from that breakdown is that runners trained by Cole, Fahey and Harrington were profitable at Betfair SP [the P/L(BF) column in the tables] in each of the four seasons.

Ger Lyons had a tough 2016, but has shown three years of unbroken profit since; and Eve Johnson Houghton's numbers dipped in 2018, when she went 0 from 15 with juvenile first-timers, but are otherwise solid.

But I'd have reservations about David Simcock in this context after he went 0 from 20 in 2019: if we were to drop one of our six trainers, it would likely be him.

Figures for 2016...

And 2017...

With 2018 producing...

And finally 2019 gave us...

From the above annual break down figures, Paul Cole's failure to hit the 10% SR in both 2017 & 2018, and Eve Johnson Houghton's similar strike rate deficiency in 2018 and 2019 ought to preclude them from our final angle; and if we also decided that David Simcock's 2019 performance was too unsettling for inclusion, we'd then take just three trainers forward: Fahey, Harrington and Lyons.

I'm happy to overlook Ger Lyons' failure to make profit in 2016, as a near 16% strike rate suggests his winners were simply too short-priced to cover the losers. If we set 2016 aside for now, our three final trainers' collective record over the past three seasons stands at a combined...

...which is not too dissimilar to our opening set of figures. The strike rate has risen slightly from 14.56% to 15.38% whilst the ROI has dropped from 50.13% to a still very respectable 43.29% and, importantly, I think the final numbers are likely to be more stable with less scope for variance.

 

So, if you're looking to blindly back 2 yr olds on their Flat debut this season I'd suggest your starting point should be those trained by Richard Fahey, Jessica Harrington and Ger Lyons.

 

I intend to back up this starter piece with a more detailed analysis of each of my six originally highlighted trainers to analyse which of their two-year-old debutants to back based on criteria such as track/track location, going, distance, jockey, time of year and so on.

- CW

Geegeez NH Trainer Rankings 2019/20

Another day, another dataset. Well, you've got to do something to pass the time, haven't you? I was thinking about how the National Hunt season 2019/20 ended so abruptly and how unsatisfactory it was; and then I began to think how unsatisfactory the whole Trainers' Championship is, to this scribe at least. Without for a second wishing to discredit the excellent Nicky Henderson, or his closest pursuer, Paul Nicholls, the barometer of success in this championship immediately discriminates against more than 99.72% of trainers (two with a chance, 716 others last season with varying degrees of no chance).

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that huge swathes of the majority have no desire to become Champion Trainer, but it is also fair to suggest there are scores of better than capable handlers who will never get the chance at the top table because of the self-perpetuating nature of its ranking system. A focus on volume and prize money rewards those with large yards full of expensive purchases; and how do you get such a cup which runneth over? By being atop the trainers' table.

Of course, everyone started somewhere and (most of) the names at the peak of the pile earned their place. Others further down the current list will one day join them and someone will wrest the crown from the districts of Seven Barrows and Ditcheat one of these days - for the first time since 2004/5. That season saw the last of Martin Pipe's 15 titles, interspersed mid-flow by a brace for 'the Duke', David Nicholson, and preceded by a further brace for... Nicky Henderson (and a single for David Elsworth thanks almost exclusively to Desert Orchid's heroics). So it is that, since 1985, only five trainers have been Champion. Proprietary stuff.

Back to the start and, as I was saying, I got to thinking about "who is the best?", a question where the 'who' varies depending on the definition of 'best'.

The formal understanding is the one with the most prize money accrued. Although that is on one hand somewhat crass, on the other it does seem to allow the cream to rise to the top - certainly in terms of quality and quantity. Both quality and quantity, however, are self-perpetuating functions of seniority: earned or otherwise, the answer is generally pretty much the same from year to year to year, which tells us little about the aspirants or the quietly very effective.

So I had an itch and I scratched it was a dataset. Not literally, of course.

Here's what I did next...

Because I wanted the findings to vaguely meaningful, notwithstanding that they would be subject to conjecture, I looked only at trainers who sent out 100 or more runners in the 2019/20 UK NH season. From 718 to saddle at least one, that left a more workable number of 73 who presided over a century and more such events.

And because I wanted, without ignoring the scale and class aspects, to partially normalise their overwhelming effect, I came up with some other (readily available) ranking factors. The factors I landed on appertained to betting and owner utility as well as the numbers game which completely besieges many trainers' thoughts from May to April each year.

For scale, I used runs, wins and places.

For owner utility - beyond the above - I selected earnings per run, winners to runners, win percentage and place percentage.

And for punter utility, I opted for starting price profit/loss.

There would be strong cases for a raft of other variables as well as, or in place of, those chosen; but this is my theoretical exercise and I hope the ones to have made the cut are at least reasonable.

So, against these eight measures, who is the champion trainer? Patience is a virtue. Let us first consider the best in each category.

Champion Scale Trainer

There is, for any conditioner of pedigree, a correlation between the number of runs and the number of wins/places: more runs will bring more wins and places. Simples.

Most Runners

Dan Skelton has a peerless propensity for volume. Last season he saddled over 250 more runners than the next on the list, Donald McCain. McCain's own scale speaks, well, volumes about his Lazarus-like comeback from the sudden loss of his major owners, Paul and Clare Rooney, less than five years ago. That split allegedly involved at least 60 horses, 52 of which had run in the previous season; so credit to McCain for rebuilding so rapidly.

Always keeping close tabs on each other, in third and fourth, are the titans Nicky Henderson and Paul Nicholls, with Messrs. Jonjo O'Neill, Evan Williams and Nigel Twiston-Davies rounding out the least secret seven in the sport.

The final trio in the top ten, and the only other three to send out more than 400 runners in the 2019/20 season, were Philip Hobbs, himself resurgent after a season in the doldrums two back; Colin Tizzard, and Neil Mulholland.

They've got the quantity, but how many winners came their way?

 

Most Winners

Unlike the Trainers' Championship, decided by prize money won, the Jockeys' Championship uses this metric: number of winners. If trainers were calibrated on the same gauge, would the winner still have been Nicky Henderson? Yes! And no...

Tied at the summit are the actual Champion Trainer, Henderson, and the Most Runners award winner, Dan Skelton. It seems quite fitting that there should be a confluence of quality and quantity between this pair that brings them together with the exact same number of victories - 118 - across the season.

No other trainer managed three figures, though of course the truncation of term almost certainly denied that noted fast finisher, Paul Nicholls, who might yet have inflicted some squeaky bum time on his nemesis through potent late salvos at Ayr and Sandown.

No Duckworth-Lewis here, result stands, weighed in.

Familiar names all completing the top ten, and some performances worthy of mention. Philip Hobbs' return to form was expected, perhaps, but the re-emergence of fellow Somerset resident David Pipe was probably less predictable. From 116 winners in 2014/15, Pipe contracted to 80 then 59 then 33 in the following three seasons. 44 was an improvement last term and, from a handful less runners this campaign, the most famous resident of Wellington boot-ed home 66 winners, an uplift of 50%.

Pipe was joined in the swinging 60's by Olly Murphy and Fergal O'Brien as well as the already mentioned McCain, Tizzard and O'Neill. Dr Richard Newland, much of whose work is conducted in the summer months, has a tough gig to replicate last season's sixty winners given jump racing is not mooted to return until at least July 1st. Others - indeed most - will be affected by that, too, though few target the summer programme as effectively as the Doctor.

Most Placed Horses (including winners)

The same top four as the most winners chart, but Fergal O'Brien gets a second name check, jumping into the top five for number of placed horses.

Given he was only 16th in terms of number of runners saddled, both his win and place counts are commendable.

 

 

And the Champion Scale Trainer is...

 

Congratulations go to Mister Big, Dan Skelton.

Top for number of runners, joint-top for number of winners, and top for number of placed runners makes Dan the runaway winner of this category.

Skelton was flanked on the podium by Nicky Henderson and Paul Nicholls, his former boss, who this time settled for silver and bronze respectively.

There were no major surprises lower down the scale top ten with the probable exception of David Pipe. After some regressive and lean years, it's great to see Nicholashayne back on the map.

*

Champion Owner Utility Trainer

The first category is arguably a touch superficial in some regards, so well done if you've made it this far! In my opinion, things are about to get a lot more interesting, even if that may only be relative...

There are four sub-categories that together will earn one trainer the gong for owner utility, a considerably more meaningful stripe upon any handler's shoulder. To remind you, the quartet are earnings per run, winners to runners, win percentage and place percentage.

Highest Earnings Per Run

Had I used earnings, as well as number of runs, wins and places, the overall table would have looked quite similar to the actual Champion Trainer table: that would have been self-defeating. But, by the same token, it is appropriate to consider earnings, in context.

So I took the seasonal prize money totals of our trainers and divided them by their respective number of runners. A great leveller.

As can be seen, that puts a whole different spin on proceedings. That scourge of the British Cheltenham Festival trainer ranks, Gordon Elliott, heads the list, and by daylight, too.

Elliott's Cotswold squad snaffled seven winners through the season, which was four fewer than his northern raiders purloined: always a happy hunting ground, Perth provided aplenty, accounting for 11 of Cullentra Stables' 28 UK 2019/20 wins.

Then follow NJH and PFN, at a respectful distance, as was often the case in mid-March (seems a very long time ago now).

But emerging from the long grass are some lesser lights able to compete better than equally with most on this more even sward.

Anthony Honeyball, whose yard is sponsored by geegeez.co.uk; Brian Ellison, another renaissance man this season; and Harry Whittington, propelled into the top eight thanks to the likes of Festival winner Simply The Betts and, in the same Brooks family ownership, Rouge Vif and Saint Calvados, all provided plenty of bang for their owners' bucks.

In the cases of Ellison and Honeyball, it is likely that initial purchase prices were significantly lower than the top three as well as Harry W. Further credit then is due.

Winners to Runners

If you're an owner, what do you crave more than anything else? To see your horse win. Ideally a big pot but, once reality kicks in, any pot will do. So who managed to make connections smile on the most regular basis?

Given that all of the trainers in the list sent out at least 100 runners, this is a representative table of those whose focus may be said to be on quality - at least race-winning quality somewhere on the ability spectrum - over quantity. It is also a nod to a handler's ability to place horses in the right races. To appear in this top ten anywhere is a huge credit.

For example, the likes of Paul Nicholls and Nicky Henderson can be marked up for their four-in-nine winners to runners ratios given the previously flagged scale of their operations. Dan Skelton, by comparison, comes in at number 21 with a slightly better than one-in-three winners to runners rate. That's respectable, especially given he saddled 212 individual horses last season; but it's not at the level of these guys on this measure.

Four trainers managed to win with more than half of all the horses they sent to the races, headed by Anthony Honeyball whose owners cheered their horses to victory at least once during the season slightly more often than four-in-seven. What makes this performance even more creditable is that Honeyball had a dismal campaign in 2018/19, when the yard was blighted by a stubborn virus for most of the year.

A close second was the revitalised Brian Ellison. What is remarkable about Ellison's season is not the number of winners - he recorded the same 34 total two seasons ago, and prior to that was in the high forties for two further seasons; no, it is the strikingly fewer runners which he sent out. It's a stark illustration, perhaps, of how fashion changes but consider that Ellison's 34 NH winners in the 2017/18 campaign came from 249 runs and 65 different horses whereas he matched the winner tally from just 117 runs and just 37 individual horses this time around.

Borders trainer Sandy Thomson and Grand National-winning summer specialist Dr Richard Newland keep their connections contented at a better that one-in-two rate, too.

All of the other handlers in the list - David Pipe, Chris Gordon, Fergal O'Brien and Olly Murphy - deserve mention for their excellent performance on this important measure of utility.

Win Percentage

There is, perhaps unsurprisingly though statistically not necessarily, a strong link between the winners to runners key players and those with the highest win percentage based on wins to runs. To be clear, whereas winners to runners measures how many individual horses won during the season, win percentage is simply the number of all wins divided by the number of all runs.

The top pair, clear of their field, were again Brian Ellison and Anthony Honeyball, though in the reverse order this time. Both won at about 29% during the season, both recorded Impact Value scores around 2.5 (implying they won almost two-and-a-half times as often as the average in the training ranks).

Henderson's one-in-four win rate, on quadruple the number of runners as the top two, is also very impressive. No other National Hunt trainer of more than a hundred runners last term managed an IV of greater than 2, Jamie Snowdon's next best being 1.89.

To put those win strike rates into perspective, the average for all trainers last season was 11.79%.

 

Place Percentage

If your horse cannot win a race, what is the next best thing? It is probably being placed.

There should be a link between win percentage and place percentage, though the latter often 'smooths the curve' on the basis that more horses make the frame than win and, therefore, the sample size is bigger.

There are new names in this top ten, though not the main man. He is Anthony Honeyball, whose consistency in the Owner Utility category cannot be overstated. Honeyball's Potwell Farm team made the frame more than half the time last season, the only trainer in the country to achieve that from greater than 100 runners.

Gordon Elliott's selective sailors came in next best (consider that Elliott ran 292 individual horses in Ireland last season, 80 more than did Dan Skelton in the UK, and you'll start to get a feel for the squad from which he can select his raiding party) at just shy of 50%, with Fergal O'Brien a close third.

Brian Ellison, top for win strike rate, drops to fifth here, while Seven Barrows and Ditcheat, as well as Olly Murphy's Warren Chase Stables, are all again represented in the top eight.

New names to feature here, suggesting they may have been a touch unfortunate not to win a couple more last term, are Kim Bailey and Alex Hales.

And the Champion Owner Utility Trainer  is...

 

Huge congratulations to Anthony Honeyball, whose average position of second, including two top rankings, across four sub-categories marks him down as a worthy winner of the Champion Owner Utility Trainer section.

To win with well over half of all horses, to make the frame with more than half of all runners, to win with two-in-seven of all runners, and to maintain sufficient quality whilst doing it to record the fourth-highest earnings per run is outstanding. Honeyball is clearly the boutique trainer in the country and it is not coincidence that geegeez.co.uk both sponsors the yard and syndicates horses within it.

Nicky Henderson again must settle for minor honours, third place this time behind the resurgent Brian Ellison in second. Paul Nicholls further demonstrates his consistency in fourth, though he might have snatched bronze had he been afforded the chance to reprise the late flourish of recent seasons in the final weeks of term.

Dr Newland, Fergal O'Brien, David Pipe, Olly Murphy (the only other trainer with whom geegeez.co.uk syndicates jumpers), Philip Hobbs and the hitherto unmentioned Nicky Richards complete the top ten. All performed impressively for their owners during the 2019/20 campaign.

*

Champion Bettor Utility Trainer

Just one category here, starting price profit/loss (SP P/L). For this pilot ranking piece, that will suffice as representative of punter utility, but it will likely be supplanted in future by something like exchange A/E, a more predictive metric performed on a truer market. That's for next time.

Profit/Loss at Starting Price

Isn't it funny how the minute one puts a bettors' slant on things the picture changes almost completely? Funny yes, but it also makes perfect sense. Those at the head of the official Champion Trainer table will almost always be the best known of their peer group, most of them relative household names to even casual bettors. That's precisely why they won't generally appear in this list: they are over-exposed from a betting perspective, though all will saddle great value bets in certain situations. That's for another day!

Brian Ellison's preeminence in this collective is a nod to his struggles in recent seasons. This is a guy who has achieved a Grade 1 and eight Grade 2 victories under National Hunt rules, all bar one of those since 2015. And yet his overall regression in recent times, highlighted above, has led to some juicy priced winners - and a +56.03 level stakes profit - as a result of a consistent run of form insufficiently accommodated by the market.

Last season's exchange Actual over Expected (Ex A/E) of 1.55 is likely not sustainable - and is a sore thumb when compared to his five season Ex A/E of 1.04. The latter figure remains solid enough, and it is to be hoped that 2019/20 was a turning point for a likeable man who is, clearly, a very, very good trainer.

In second place is Rebecca Menzies, like Ellison a dual-purpose trainer. +29.75 to level stakes will have been highly pleasing for yard devotees and, unlike the leader in this season, she also broke even last season. Ms Menzies has a two-year Ex A/E of 1.31.

The bronze position goes to Ben Pauling, which is remarkable when one considers that his team were badly out of form for a chunk of the campaign. Pauling is an under-rated trainer in my opinion, and he has some very promising horses for next term. With a clean bill of health, he should begin to challenge some of the more mainstream top tens.

Excellent punter performances, too, in the latter half of the top dozen from rankings regulars Honeyball, O'Brien and Pipe, who all remained in the black to level stakes at starting price.

Thus the Champion Bettor Utility Trainer is Brian Ellison. Ellison has had a brilliant season and this category award is fitting recognition of that.

*

Overall Top Ranked NH Trainer 2019/20

We've seen which handlers have performed best in terms of scale, and owner and punter value. Those are the constituent components that inform the overall rankings. There is no weighting, no magic algorithm to contrive an outcome. Arguments, perfectly credible ones at that, can be proffered about the validity of the chosen variables: isn't that the fundamental point - to be arguable - of a ranking or rating system? And, with those caveats in place, it is time to reveal the 2019/20 Geegeez Champion National Hunt Trainer.

The winner is...

NICKY HENDERSON

The master of Seven Barrows is the official Champion Trainer for the season just passed, and he is top ranked in the Geegeez list also. Having set out to create a level playing field for anyone who saddled 100+ runners in the campaign, I'm not entirely sure whether to laugh or cry at the fact that the final answer is the same as the deeply unsatisfactory - to me at least - method of awarding Champion Trainer honours.

Henderson can be a touch divisive, often projecting an aura of bumbling naivety in stark contrast to his long-term elite level performance. But that performance, matching quantity with quality, is just about peerless whichever way you dissect it. A level stakes profit at exchange prices in the last two seasons is the cherry on top of Henderson's impressively accomplished cake.

In second and third are Fergal O'Brien and David Pipe, the former consistently climbing the ranks, the latter back in the big time. Both had excellent campaigns by a number of measures and are applauded.

O'Brien went from a 12% to a 19.4% win rate, bettering his previous best of 18.35% in the 2016/17 season. He also recorded his best ever number of winners. Pipe has been mentioned numerous times in the above despatches, and rewarded numerous loyal and big-spending owners in 2019/20. He has some exciting novices to look forward to next term as well as his usual batch of interesting handicappers.

Very close to them - note in the full table below the left-hand average score column from which the rankings are produced - in fourth and fifth are Paul Nicholls and Dr Richard Newland. I suspect Nicholls' win percentage and earnings per run may have improved enough in a full season to bag third but that, as we know, is not how the cookie crumbled.

Given the loss of at least a sizeable chunk of the summer jumping this year due to the coronavirus hiatus and a focus on flat racing when the sport returns, it might be expected that while Nicholls could elevate to the podium, Dr N will do very well to hang on to his excellent top five finish.

In joint-sixth place are Anthony Honeyball and Nigel Twiston-Davies. Honeyball should have more horses/owners, his finishing position testament to the brilliant job he, Rachael and the team do with the small but select group in their care. Naturally, that would bring the challenge of maintaining performance levels on greater volume, but if there is a trainer in the top ten deserving of such a challenge it is him.

Twiston-Davies, meanwhile, had the lowest win and place strike rates of the top ten in spite of achieving his own best win rate since the 2007/8 season. A winners to runners ratio of 40% is perfectly respectable except when placed next to Honeyball's season-leading 57.5%. The latter, clear top in the Owner Utility section, has some very exciting novice hurdlers and chasers to work with next term, including two mares for geegeez.co.uk syndicates, one of which is already a Listed bumper winner.

In eighth place is Olly Murphy. Incredibly, Murphy is in just his third season training, and he's managed to marginally improve his win strike rate from season to season while scaling up in parallel. Overall runner numbers were down a touch this term, obviously due in large part to the lost six weeks caused by Covid-19, but this was a breakthrough cycle for the Wizard of Wilmcote as he recorded his first Grade 1 success with Itchy Feet in the Scilly Isles Novices' Chase. The Cheltenham Festival was frustrating but Olly has an exciting team of youngsters for next season and he looks very likely to continue his ascendance when jumping resumes.

It will be fascinating to see if Brian Ellison, in ninth, can sustain his effort into the new season. He has bundles of back class but recent struggles and a group of horses that may be handicapped towards the upper end of their ability means he'll probably need to acquire new stock to stay competitive in the rankings. I hope he does.

The likes of Philip Hobbs, Dan Skelton and Nicky Richards are all bubbling under, though Colin Tizzard's 15th place can be considered an underachievement. So too, to a lesser extent, can the rankings of Jonjo O'Neill and Donald McCain: given the firepower they have, earnings per run of around £1,250 are disappointing.

The full table is below so you can look for your favourites and see how they fared. Click the images (two halves) to enlarge them.

I'd very much welcome any comments and suggestions, on the process rather than the results - data are data, after all.

Matt

Stat of the Day : An Overview

After taking some time to sort out the mess my travel agency business is currently in, I thought it would be a good time to start making some meaningful contributions to the site again, writes Chris Worrall.

I propose a series of articles looking at which trainers fare best in certain months, which fare best at certain tracks and a whole host of stat-based pieces. If there are any particular angles you'd like me to explore on your behalf, please ask.

I'm regularly looking for new angles as a way in to finding a bet and largely because I need to find selections each day for my Stat Picks service and, more importantly for Geegeez readers, a daily selection for Stat of the Day.

What is Stat of the Day?

Well, in mid-November 2011 (have I really been here nearly nine years?!), Matt said to me "I've had an idea for a daily piece we can do between us", and a pillar of geegeez was conceived. The basic premise around the service was - and still is - to highlight one horse each day that statistics suggest has a decent chance at a decent price that also offered some value.

It was never really intended as a tipping service and, although we now keep basic data re: strike rates, profit/loss & ROI, it still isn't a tipping service as such. Well, I don't think it is anyway. My aim is to fulfil the original brief: one horse per day with a chance at a reasonable price but, more than that, to highlight one or more statistical angles you can use to help in your own betting. The picks are not incidental, nor even are they secondary, but there is much more to Stat of the Day than the name of a horse and a price.

In recent years, I've been the main contributor to the service, as Matt's time has been needed elsewhere on the site, but it remains a team effort. [It's 99% Chris, 1% me! - Ed.]

How do I land on the daily selections?

Well, it's probably not the most time-efficient method, if I'm honest, but I'm a little set in my ways. So here goes.

Stage 1: Longlisting

Like many of you, I have a stack of stored angles created via Geegeez' excellent Query Tool (and I'll be sharing some of these with you in due course). I also have a large number of saved angles on the also-excellent Horseracebase site and each evening I'm able to access a list of horses that are set to run the following day.

In addition to those two lists, I look at the Geegeez report suite for the daily Shortlist and also My Report Angles, where I have my own preferred parameters set up. So, after consulting these four places, I'm presented with a large number of runners and that's stage 1 complete.

Stage 2: Eliminations

Stage 2 involves putting all the races where I've got possibles into track/time order and it's at this point that I first look at the Geegeez racecards page, which I then use to cross off any races I wouldn't want to get involved in for SotD purposes. It's not an exhaustive list and I do sometimes make exceptions, but generally I get rid of maiden races (but often keep maiden handicaps), flat /AW novice non-handicaps, median auction races, bumpers (NH Flat), Irish racing, and races with 14 or more runners.

Stage 3: Further Analysis

I'm now left with a number of races to assess with one or more possibles and it's only at this point that I actually look at the racecards themselves. I then use a mixture of Instant Expert, Pace/Draw, Head to Head, Full Form and that unquantifiable gut feeling to establish I believe have a decent chance of winning and I then eliminate those that don't.

Stage 4: Value Judgement

This can then leave me with anything from one to ten runners on a shortlist, which I then put in the order I feel are most likely to win. Once I've got that pecking order in place I will, for the first time, look at the prices available. I'll have an idea in my head of what kind of price I'd want for each runner and so I start at number one and check if (a) it's available at 5/2 or longer (my own general minimum cut-off for SotD) and (b) if it's priced close to or higher than what I'd wanted it to be.

I'm aware that the last part is arbitrary, but I've developed a "feeling" for what suits and what doesn't over the years. So, if number one fits both criteria, that's the Stat of the Day pick. If it doesn't fit both criteria, then I move to number two and so on.

Do they win and are they worth following?

Anybody who publicly publishes selections at odds of 5/2 or longer will pick many more losers than winners and I'm no exception. But, from the first pick in mid-November 2011 to the end of February 2020, after removing any non-runners from the data we had 2,515 SotD runners grace the track, of which 664 were winners.

That's a strike rate of 26.4% with advised profits of 526.45 points, equating to a 20.9% profit on all stakes. In money terms, almost £1.21 back for every £1 wagered.

As for being worth following, then for most people it's a "yes". We don't blow our trumpet about strike rates and profits etc, nor do we get all melancholy when they don't win. The real value of SotD is still as it was when it started back in 2011: highlighting profitable angles for future reference/usage and hopefully a dollop of jam on today's bread.

The angle used for the next pick (sooner rather than later, hopefully, once this lockdown is confined to history) might not generate a winner for us on that day, but it will produce more winners in the future and if we can steer you towards future winners, then we're not too concerned about highlighting a losing bet on the day.

SotD is most certainly a long-term project and, as with all "tipping" services (I know we say it's not tipping, but it has become widely perceived as one), it has to endure peaks and troughs along the way. We've had, and will have again, long losing runs; and we've had, and will have again,  ridiculous purple patches. The overall picture remains a healthy one and I can't wait to get going again!

What kind of angles do I use?

Well, some are very simple horses for courses type approaches, or trainer/track combinations, whilst others can be more complex; and I'll be bringing you some examples over the coming days/weeks until racing resumes. So, if there's anything you'd like to look at, please let me know in the comments below.

Thanks for reading and for following Stat of the Day if that's you.

Chris

Punting Pointers: Pontefract Draw & Pace

The draw and potential draw biases is where my interest in horse racing began, writes Dave Renham. Back in the late 1990's I remember reading some excellent draw articles by Russell Clarke in a magazine called Odds On and I was hooked. Within days I was doing my own research using my Superform Annuals and pen and paper. This progressed to putting data into computers using excel.

I dread to think how much time I spent collating data. My main memory is working on my computer from 10pm to 2am on a regular basis. However, in those days the hard work was worth it because it was still a very under-researched area and draw biases were quite strong at certain courses. In addition to that, it was at a time before racing computer programs were commercially available.

It is over 20 years since I wrote my first book on draw bias and how things have changed since those ‘good old days’. At this juncture, it needs to be pointed out that many of the draw biases that were around 15 or 20 years ago are either not as strong as they were, or have disappeared completely. For many years draw biases provided punters with money spinning opportunities, me included. Virtually all my decent winning bets from around 1997 to 2006 were influenced by the draw in some way.

However, as with most things, when a good source of highlighting winners is found, within a few years the edge starts to disappear. This is very much a horse racing trait - good ideas gain an initial edge because the majority of people do not use that winner finding approach. As time goes on however, the betting public and the bookmakers catch up, and as a result the prices tend to contract and the value begins to disappear. This has happened with the draw, and to confound the problem course officials started using other means of negating potential draw bias. Running rails are now moved in order to keep horses off the fastest strip of ground, and better watering and drainage systems mean that most straight courses are far more even than they were back then.

The draw has had massive exposure in the past, and with people realising the edge is disappearing, the subject is beginning to assume less importance. However, before we begin to write off the draw completely, I still believe there is an edge for the educated draw punter. I maintain that at certain tracks a poor draw can still all but wipe out the chance of a horse, while a good draw increases one’s chances considerably. The trick perhaps is to find biases that may be more subtle, or at least which most punters are less aware of.

During this period of racing inactivity I plan to look at a few individual courses in depth, focusing primarily on draw bias but looking at pace aspects as well. The first course that will be put under the microscope is Pontefract.

 

Pontefract is located in West Yorkshire and is a left-handed track that is undulating with a stiff uphill finish in the home straight. Indeed the lowest point on the track is around the six-furlong start while the finishing post is the highest point, meaning both the five- and six-furlong sprints are testing.

The course is around two miles in length and, something I didn’t realise, is that originally it was around four furlongs shorter. Being left-handed one would assume that lower draws may have the advantage over high drawn horses at some distances, but the proof of the pudding, as always, will be in the eating!

For this article I am using key tools on Geegeez: namely the Draw Analyser, Pace Analyser and Query Tool. The period of study is a long one – going back to 2009, but I will examine more recent data in detail too.

My draw research has always focused on handicap races only. My belief is that handicap races give a better and fairer data set as such races are generally competitive affairs. When analysing each handicap race, I divide the draw into thirds - those drawn in the bottom third (low), those drawn in the middle third, and those drawn in the top third.

It should also be noted that I also adjust the draw positions when there are non runners – for example if the horse drawn 3 is a non runner, then the horse drawn 4 becomes drawn 3, draw 5 becomes 4 and so on. On a completely fair course the winning percentages for each "third" of the draw should be around 33% each. The differences in the percentages will help to determine the strength of the bias. The good news is that the Draw Analyser on Geegeez makes exactly the same splits, and is also capable of calculating draw by the advertised stall in your racecard and the actual stall, accounting for non-runners.

In my experience, I consider there to be two types of draw bias. Firstly, clear bias towards one specific section of the draw; this is the strongest possible bias. Secondly, one can get a bias against one specific section of the draw.

Another key factor to take into account is field size: for potential draw bias to exist I maintain there needs to be a reasonable number of runners in the race, and eight or more runners is the figure I have chosen. Draw bias is far more likely to be prevalent in larger fields as horses will either be forced to run wide (hence having further to travel), or be forced to run on a part of the track where the ground may be slightly slower. If the data set is big enough I will look at bigger field data where I feel it is appropriate.

OK time to crunch some numbers.

 

Pontefract 5 furlongs (8+ runner handicaps)

There have been 89 qualifying races - five-furlong handicaps with eight or more runners - during the period of study. Here are the overall draw splits:

Despite the track being left handed and the 5f distance having a bend to run round, low drawn horses do not dominate. The A/E values below suggest that the low drawn horses are overbet and are essentially poor value:

For the record, if you had bet every horse from the bottom third of the draw at £1 per bet you would have lost £136.34; backing all middle draws would have lost just £9.62 at starting price.

In the following table individual draw positions have been broken down for 5f 8+ runner handicaps at Ponte:

A few individual stalls made a profit but clearly there is no pattern to this so I would not be advocating backing certain draws in the future.

Field size seems to make no difference in the draw figures, but I was keen to look at whether the going made a difference. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the going got testing in sprint races at Pontefract, horses tended to head towards the near rail in the straight giving higher draws an edge. Unfortunately for the minimum distance we only have 15 handicap races that have occurred on soft or heavy going; but, interestingly, lower draws have won 9 of the 15 (66.66%). That's far too small a sample from which to make any concrete conclusions; however, the 6f stats may give us more data to work with and may hopefully will show correlation.

Regarding 5f soft or heavy ground runners, you would make a very small profit backing lower drawn horses each way (£3.03 to £1 level stakes).

Let us look at pace and running style now. Here are the overall figures:

An notable edge for front runners can be observed. Moreover, better than 52% of horses that took the early lead went on to finish in the first three. This implies a strong front running bias.

On good ground or firmer the front running bias gets even stronger – early leaders win 20.48% of these races with an IV of 2.15. On good to soft or softer, conversely, front runners have failed to win any of the 22 races. It will be interesting to see if a similar pattern emerges over 6f.

Lastly for the five-furlong range, a look at draw / pace (running style) combinations for front runners in these 5f races:

Due to the left handed nature of the course/distance one might have expected more leaders to have come from the lowest draws. Interestingly, though, those horses that led from the bottom third of the draw (low) only managed to win three races from 39 attempts (SR 7.69%); A/E 0.51.

Horses that led early from middle draws went on to win over 25% of the time giving a positive A/E of 2.66. One additional stat is worth sharing: horses drawn in the bottom third of the draw (low) that were held up early have a dreadful record, winning just 2 races from 98 with an A/E of just 0.17.

Pontefract 5f Handicaps (8+ runners) Summary

The draw seems to be fair with no bias, while from a pace perspective front runners do have an edge.

Early pace is generally far more material than stall position.

Horses held up from a low draw have a terrible record.

*

Pontefract 6 furlongs (8+ runner handicaps)

 There have been 153 qualifying races over six furlongs during the period of study. Here are the overall draw splits:

There seems to be a small advantage for lower draws here. It may not be hugely significant but is worth further investigation. The A/E values correlate to a certain extent as shown below:

A look again at individual draw positions and how they have fared over time:

Stalls 1 to 3 have decent individual A/E values and stall 2 has secured a long term profit. However, backing this draw blind in the future looks a less than robust way to produce a profit. I would be encouraged, however, if a horse I fancied was drawn in the bottom three stalls – this would be an extra tick in the box as it were.

This graph, which shows IV3 (the average Impact Value of a stall and its closest neighbours, e.g. 456), helps to visualise the table above from a 'likelihood of winning' perspective:

Looking at field size, low draws have the strongest edge in smaller fields (races of 8 or 9 runners). There have been a decent number of these races – 62 in total. The draw split for winners as follows:

The A/E value for low drawn horses edges up to 1.06 here. It seems therefore that a lower draw is more preferable in smaller fields. It is nothing to go ‘crazy’ about but a lower draw under these circumstances does look preferable.

What about the impact of the going in Ponte handicaps over six furlongs? It was noted above that, on soft or heavy ground in 5f handicaps, low draws seemed to have an edge albeit from limited data. In handicaps over a furlong further, the soft or heavy draw stats look as follows:

Again this data set is quite small (21 races), but a look at the win and placed data - table below - strongly suggests a lower draw is preferable:

For the record, backing all low-drawn horses EACH WAY on soft or heavy ground would have secured a profit of £19.57 to £1 level stakes.

Next follows a table illustrating the effect of pace and running style:

An edge for front runners again, while hold up horses have a relatively moderate record. When looking at 5f races earlier it was noted that front runners did better on firmer going and had struggled in testing ground. Unfortunately, from a statistical point of view at least, the complete reverse is the case here with front runners having performed far better on testing ground: indeed from the limited sample they have won over three times more than would be expected statistically. So one potential theory goes out of the window!

Again, we'll close out the distance review with a look at draw / pace (running style) combinations specifically for front runners in 6f handicaps:

As with the 5f range, horses which are drawn high are less likely to get to the early lead - in this case approximately half as likely as those drawn middle or low. There is little to choose between low and middle drawn horses in terms of getting to the early lead.

However, it should be noted that higher drawn horses that got to the lead have managed to go on to win almost 20% of the time.

Pontefract 6f Handicaps (8+ runners) Summary

To conclude, the 6f trip seems to offer low drawn horses an advantage which appears to increase in smaller fields.

The bias towards lower draws has been stronger on softer ground where, conversely, higher draws have struggled more.

 *

Pontefract 1 mile (8+ runner handicaps)

Most people focus their draw attentions at sprint distances, but a mile for me has always been the key distance at Pontefract in terms of the draw. From my previous research, lower draws traditionally had a decent edge over a mile so let’s look at the current data. There have been 142 qualifying races which gives us a really good chunk of information:

As expected the low draw bias is strong, with the A/E values not surprisingly following a similar pattern:

And here is the performance of each individual draw since 2009:

Draw 2, as it did over 5f and 6f, shows a blind profit. The A/E values for draws 1 to 3 are good as one would expect. This table does show quite neatly the draw bias in operation – several columns show this such as the win% column, the ew % column and the A/E column.

Once more, the IV3 chart brings the point home:

As this mile trip indicates a strong bias it is worthwhile checking a more recent subset of the data to confirm the long-term perspective. Focusing on the last four seasons (2016 to 2019), during which time span there were 54 races, gives the following splits:

These are similar results albeit a slightly lower win percentage for the bottom third of the draw. However, it ratifies the bias which has been around for years remains alive and kicking.

A  solid footnote is that in the past four seasons 23 of the 54 mile handicap races with eight or more runners were won by horses drawn 1 or 2 (SR 42.6%). Compare this with just eight wins achieved by the two highest drawn horses.

In addition, for those who like ‘exotic’ bets, you would have made a small profit if you had permed the lowest two drawn horses in every race in £1 reverse exactas: £14 profit from a £108 outlay. Of course an exacta is a pool bet so it is difficult to exploit potential draw biases in this way as such ideas, if overbet, would contract the returns. Having said that I have personally had much success in the past perming certain draws at certain tracks.

Back to the complete data set (going back to 2009) and a look at mile handicaps by number of runners - specifically looking at fields of 8 or 9 runners - there have been 53 races with the following draw splits:

A stronger bias it seems for lower drawn horses in small fields. The A/E values back this up as is shown below:

There also is a strengthening of the bias in bigger fields albeit from a relatively small sample. In races of 14 runners or more, 19 of the 30 races (SR 63.3%) have been won by the bottom (low) third of the draw.

Turning attention to the state of the turf, the win percentages for low drawn runners are extremely uniform and I have found nothing of note there.

However, with regard to pace and running styles, there are some factors to keep in mind. Here are the overall stats:

In racing in general, as the race distance increase so front running biases start to diminish. However, at Pontefract there is a stronger front running bias over a mile than at 6 furlongs. I found nothing of interest when delving into going considerations and field size, so nothing extra to report there.

Finally over this mile trip this is how the draw / pace (running style) combinations look for front runners in 1 mile handicaps:

These stats demonstrate that it is much easier - or at least more common - for a horse to lead from a low draw over a mile at Pontefract. Having said that, high drawn early leaders have gone on to win slightly more often in percentage terms. Horses that race mid division or are held up when drawn in the top third of the draw (high) have won just 7 races from 285 runners.

Geegeez Draw Analyser has a heat map to help visualise this, here displaying IV:

Pontefract 1 Mile Handicaps (8+ runners) Summary

The mile trip at Pontefract shows a significant draw bias to lower drawn horses. It is one of the strongest mile biases in the UK, if not the strongest.

From a pace angle, it is preferable for a horse to lead or track the pace.

*

Pontefract 1 mile 2 furlongs (8+ runner handicaps)

The final distance to be examined in this article is a mile and a quarter. The configuration of the track means that there is an extra bend at this distance as compared to the mile trip and hence one would expect low draws to again have a decent edge. There have been 107 qualifying races from which to find angles:

On first view this looks a very strong bias with lower draws dominating and higher draws seemingly at even more of a disadvantage than they were at a mile. The A/E values back up the raw win percentages as a measure of profitability:

Indeed backing every horse drawn in the lowest third over ten furlongs at Pontefract (8+ runner handicaps) would have returned £39.90 to a £1 level stake.

Individual draw data next, and can stall 2 make a blind profit yet again??!!

Yes! Stall 2 has made a blind profit again - meaning it has been profitable at every individual distance up to 1m2f - as have stalls 3 and 4. Again, this table helps one visualise the strength of the low draw bias. Would I consider backing draws 1 to 4 ‘blind’ in the future? No, but it is clear that these draws must be the primary focus when analysing these races. Here is the IV3 chart to bring that home:

Time to check out more recent data to see whether the bias has been as strong over the past four seasons (2016-2019). There have been 33 qualifying races during that time, giving these stats:

Whilst it is not quite as strong, that could simply be down to the smaller - less reliable - sample size. It still indicates that low draws have a substantial advantage over higher ones.

Moving back to the complete data set (2009-2019) the low draw bias seems to strengthen considerably as the field size grows. This makes sense as the extra bend potentially helps lower drawn runners and impedes higher drawn runners who have to race wider. In races of 12 runners or more, 20 of the 31 races (SR 64.52%) have been won by the bottom third of the draw (low). The A/E value stands at a very healthy 1.25.

Indeed moving the goalposts up further - to 13+ runners - low draws have totally dominated, winning a huge 17 of the 22 races (SR 77.27%). The A/E value for low drawn runners is an uber-impressive 1.53.

Looking at going data there is something which stands out albeit from a limited sample. Races on soft or heavy seems to increase the strength of the low draw bias. From 21 races 15 were won by a horse in the lowest drawn third of the field. That equates to over 70% and an A/E of 1.55. Of course with limited data one cannot be too dogmatic, but these figures are still highly promising.

A look at the pace / running styles figures next:

Front runners have a stronger edge than I had expected, winning twice as often as most other run styles: maybe that extra bend near the start helps.

And finally, the draw / pace (running style) combinations for front runners in 1m2f handicaps:

Lower drawn horses as expected lead more often and roughly four in seven of them go on to finish in the first three. High drawn horses tend to struggle when racing mid division or when held up. This was also the case over 1 mile as we saw; over 1m2f such runners have won only five races from 207 runners.

 

Pontefract 1m2f Handicaps (8+ runners) Summary

The 1 mile 2 furlong distance shows a similarly strong low draw bias to that at a mile, and it seems that bigger fields may accentuate this.

Soft or heavy going may also strengthen the bias but that notion is based on limited data and so a watching brief is recommended.

*

Fingers crossed, in the near future we will see race meetings start again at Pontefract and, when they do, I hope these stats will help point you in the right direction in the ‘fight’ against the bookmakers.

- DR

Punting Pointers: Naas Racecourse

For those of us to the east of the Irish Sea, we are having to currently having to cram on unfamiliar subjects if we have any aspirations of passing our daily wagering examinations. Today's test features a three hour 'paper', starting at 2pm, on Naas Racecourse. For those whose betting at the track has hitherto been blind, this post will attempt to at least partially sight!

Naas Course Constitution

The track is left-handed and has a straight five- and six-furlong piste. Mile and seven-furlong races begin in the chute furthest from the 'pin' on the image below, with ten-furlong and mile and a half races beginning in the straight just after the bend past the finish line.

Races at a mile and a quarter favour fast starters and/or inside draws as there is a dogleg almost immediately, whereafter the course gently arcs left-handed to about the six-furlong point. There is a further left turn with about half a mile to go meaning wider-drawn runners can have plenty of additional distance to travel; there is, however, a half a mile or so straight in which to make a challenge, so the key is not to get hung out wide on the turns.

 

Naas Draw / Pace

5f races

The five-furlong track has had a fairly pronounced low draw bias. That said, at the start of any new season it is important to look to see whether previous biases still hold; often, track maintenance undertaken in the close season can reduce, nullify or sometimes even reverse a previous bias. As things stand, then, the Naas five-furlong picture looks like this:

Those data are based on races at the track since 2009 with 10+ runners, and relate to 'actual draw' - that is, having removed non-runners from consideration (so, for instance, a horse drawn nine but with two non-runners inside him becomes 'actual draw' seven).

The Impact Value (IV, right hand column) for low-drawn horses is 1.48, which means they are nearly one and a half times as likely to win a race compared with random.

At geegeez.co.uk, we devised a metric called IV3 to smooth the curve on individual stall performance. It simply takes the average of a stall and its nearest neighbours: for instance, the IV3 for stall six comprises the sum of the IV for stalls five, six and seven divided by three. The IV3 graph for Naas 5f races looks like this:

We can see a collection from stall four to ten at around 1.0, but higher draws are significantly unfavoured while berths one to three, especially stall one, have a notable edge.

But draw is not a one-dimensional consideration. Rather it needs to be considered in the context of the early pace horses are able to show. The below heat map illustrates the impact of both draw and run style and is clear about the importance of a very prominent early position, in terms of place percentages at least. Those held up, especially from a middle draw, have neither the pace nor the track position to compete generally.

 

1m2f races

As can be seen from the course image above, the ten-furlong range suggests it should strongly favour an inside draw, especially with pace to take advantage of that track position. The data support the logic:

We can clearly see the impact of a low draw on both win and place percentages, and with a strongly positive IV. The Actual over Expected (A/E) figure of 1.32 also implies the market hasn't fully factored low draw importance at this time.

Again, the IV3 chart is unequivocal:

Overlaying pace once more reveals that a low draw coupled with a 'led' or 'prominent' run style is a very big - and profitable - edge.

 

Naas Trainer Form

Overall Trainer Form

The top trainers in flat races at Naas in the five years from 2015 are as follows:

There are few surprises at the top of the overall list, with Aidan O'Brien lording over his peer group in terms of both strike rate and number of winners. From a punting perspective, the runners of Eddie Lynam and Andrew Oliver offer cause for hope.

Naas Handicap Trainer Form

The handicap picture looks different; here we have a number of trainers with solid win rates, numbers of wins and profit figures. Samples are smaller but still not inconsequential, with the likes of Aidan O'Brien, Jim Bolger, Ger Lyons and Jessica Harrington to the fore. These are four of the pre-eminent handlers in the land and they have all been profitable to back in Naas handicaps in recent years!

A word of caution with regards Joseph O'Brien. His seven winners have come at a cost of -27.75 points: clearly they can win but the market overestimates their chance.

Naas Early Season Trainer Form

Focusing only on the months or March and April at Naas, and we are in danger of slicing and dicing our way to statistical irrelevance (assuming we'd not already passed that point!)...

Again, the big guns of APOB, Ger Lyons, and Jessica Harrington are profitable to back. The place strike rates of Michael O'Callaghan, Tommy Stack, Ado McGuinness and Damian English all support their small numbers of winners and suggest they're worth keeping on side in March and April at Naas.

At the other end of the spectrum, Jim Bolger's strike rate in recent seasons has been a cautionary note, while Dermot Weld's horses also look overbet for all that they have a very solid place strike rate.

This article was researched using the Draw Analyser and Query Tool features within Geegeez Gold.

Matt

Stat of the Day, 23rd March 2020

Saturday's pick was...

3.10 Thurles : Sizing Pottsie @ 9/4 BOG fell at 9/4 (Led, mistake 7th and slight mistake next, pushed along and joined when fell 2 out) Aside from the fall, the jumping wasn't really up to scratch for this level.

Monday's pick runs in the...

3.30 Naas :

Before I post the daily selection, just a quick reminder of how I operate the service. Generally, I'll identify and share the selection between 8.00am and 8.15am and I then add a more detailed write-up later within an hour or so of going "live".

Those happy to take the early price on trust can do so, whilst some might prefer to wait for my reasoning. As I fit the early service in around my family life, I can't give an exact timing on the posts, so I suggest you follow us on Twitter and/or Facebook for instant notifications of a published pick.

Who?

Hong Kong @ 10/3 BOG

...in a 14-runner, Flat Handicap for 3yo over 7f on heavy ground worth £26,549 to the winner...

Why?...

This 3 yr old colt has already won in the mud here at Naas when scoring by two lengths over 6f last October and his breeding suggests he'll be better in time than his current mark of 88 would intimate.

He is trained by household name, AP O'Brien, who has won this race twice in the last seven runnings and is also 55 from 170 (32.4% SR) for 36.5pts (+21.5% ROI) here at Naas on the Flat with horses sent off at 7/1 and shorter over the last three seasons, including...

  • 37/111 (33.3%) for 38.8pts (+35%) over 6f to 1m
  • 24/78 (30.8%) for 25.5pts (+32.7%) with 3 yr olds
  • 19/68 (27.9%) for 17pts (+25%) in big (ie 12+) fields
  • and 7/19 (36.8%) for 12.6pts (+66.2%) on Soft to Heavy/Heavy ground

...whilst for a broad AP/Naas micro, try 2 & 3 yr olds @ 6f-1m in fields of 7-16 runners = 28/75 (37.3% SR) for 47.1pts (+62.8% ROI).

And that's possibly/probably enough to justify the selection today, but as Hong Kong is now returning from Group 3 action at Newmarket to make a handicap debut here, it's also worth looking at AP's runners making a handicap debut on the Flat and if we do that we see 38 winners from 164 (23.2% SR) for 105.4pts (+64.3% ROI) over the last six seasons, including of note/relevance today...

  • 34/122 (27.9%) for 102.2pts (+83.8%) at odds of Evens to 10/1
  • 28/116 (24.1%) for 85.7pts (+73.9%) with male runners
  • 26/110 (23.6%) for 95.7pts (+87%) with 3 yr olds
  • 19/65 (29.2%) for 91.4pts (+140.6%) over the last two seasons
  • 17/62 (27.4%) for 83.3pts (+134.4%) in races worth £13-75k
  • 9/26 (34.6%) for 37.8pts (+145.4%) at 7f
  • 7/23 (30.4%) for 28.3pts (+122.9%) here at Naas
  • and 5/25 (20%) for 32.3pts (+129.2%) under today's jockey, Seamie Heffernan

...and an AP/hcp debut micro? 3yo males at Evs to 10/1 over last two seasons = 8/23 (34.8% SR) for 28.3pts (+123.1% ROI)...

...but first...a 1pt win bet on Hong Kong @ 10/3 BOG as was offered by BetVictor, Hills & Ladbrokes at 8.05am Monday whilst Coral were a fraction longer, but as always please check your BOG status. To see what your preferred bookie is quoting...

...click here for the betting on the 3.30 Naas

Don't forget, we offer a full interactive racecard service every day!

REMINDER: THERE IS NO STAT OF THE DAY ON SUNDAYS

Here is today's racecard

P.S. all P/L returns quoted in the stats above are to Betfair SP, as I NEVER bet to ISP and neither should you. I always use BOG bookies for SotD, wherever possible, but I use BFSP for the stats as it is the nearest approximation I can give, so I actually expect to beat the returns I use to support my picks. If that's unclear, please ask!

Complete Guide to Betting in 3yo Handicaps

The Complete Guide to 3yo Handicaps and ‘Hot Form’
(and the Effect Coronavirus Could Have On This Flat Season)

The Hot Form report on geegeez.co.uk is my favourite report on the site and pretty much my favourite function of geegeez alongside the pace and draw data available for each race, writes Sam Darby.

The principle behind ‘hot form’ is rock solid: if other horses have come out of certain races and won or run very well (especially in a similar or better grade) then it stands to reason that is a ‘hot race’.

Runners which finished in close proximity to those who have come out and won or run well are likely to be in a similar position to do so as well on their next start; some more so than others, but we’ll get into that a little a later on.

Three Is The Magic Number

One of the most profitable areas of the sport that hot form can be applied to is 3yo handicaps.

Every flat season begins with hundreds of well handicapped, lightly raced 3yos raring to go. Inevitably, many of these horses are going to end up in the same races as other very well handicapped, lightly raced 3yos in the early part of the turf season. There are only so many races in each class at each distance, after all.

Some of the well handicapped runners in these races will only be able to finish 5th or even 6th but will go on to win on their next start in races that aren’t quite so hot.

There are some classy 3yo only handicaps that tend to work out well each season. These include the 7f handicap run at Newbury the day before the Greenham Stakes, the 7f handicap that takes place on the Wednesday of York’s Dante meeting and also the 10f London Gold Gup run on Lockinge Day at Newbury.

The last-named race was won by Melbourne Cup winner Green Moon in 2010 (Dubai World Cup winner Monterosso was 2nd) and treble Group 1 winner Al Kazeem picked up the 2011 London Gold Cup before going on to much bigger things. More recently, in 2015, Time Test won this before landing a brace of Group 2s amongst other honours.

A sure sign of a strong 3yo handicap is several top trainers entering handicap debutants or previous handicap winners. Unsurprisingly this tends to happen in the 3yo handicap races with the best prize money on offer.

It’s not just the obvious big handicaps that provide us with horses to look out for in the Hot Form report. An average looking 5f Thirsk handicap, 7.5f Beverley handicap or 10f Redcar handicap can be just as likely to produce multiple future winners, albeit in lower grades. And these future winners are likely to be more under the radar as far as bookmakers and their markets are concerned.

When Hot Form Becomes Scorching Hot

One of my favourite examples of hot form, and the race that highlighted to me just how profitable this angle could be, was a previous incarnation of the 7f handicap run at Newbury the day before the Greenham Stakes mentioned earlier run on 16th April 2004. At this time it was run over an extra furlong, so a mile, and it was the race that got me started down this very profitable path.

The results and subsequent form can be seen below:

1. African Dream

Won this off a mark of 94 and then won his next 2 starts comfortably, both in Group 3 company. He was eventually rated 19lbs higher than his rating in this race.

2. Red Lancer

Ran well here off a mark of just 80. He was beaten a short head in handicap company next time out but won the Chester Vase comfortably after that run. He was eventually rated 30lbs higher than his rating in this race.

3. Gatwick

He was rated 83 when running in this race and won his next 2 starts in big field handicaps before winning again later in the season. He was eventually rated 25lbs higher than his rating in this race.

4. Zonus

Zonus was rated 83 in this race. He was unlucky not to win on both of his next 2 starts but eventually won by 5 lengths at 8/1 a few runs later and proved 17lbs ahead of the handicapper in this race.

5. Red Spell

Competing off 79, he was the lowest rated runner in this race and came out and won his next start at 10/1 and followed that up with a 2nd at 7/1. He was eventually rated 35lbs higher than his rating in this race.

6. Frank Sonata

Rated 90 here, Frank Sonata won next time out at the Dante meeting at 33/1. He would win 2 of his next 3 starts too before running in the St Leger. He was eventually rated 21lbs higher than his rating in this race.

7. Freak Occurrence

He followed up this effort off a mark of 85 with a place at 20/1 but eventually he lost his form and didn’t win for another 6 months. One of the few unprofitable horses to follow from this race.

8. Border Music

Border Music was beaten almost 13 lengths in this race off a mark of 80 but the form of the race was so strong that he produced form figures of 32234 in similar class handicaps on his next 5 starts which included a 16/1 place in the race immediately after this. He was eventually rated 23lbs higher than his rating in this race.

9. Jedburgh

After finishing 9th in this race, beaten 13.5 lengths off a mark of 93, Jedburgh was placed at a price of 25/1 next time out from the same mark. He wouldn’t win that season but was still eventually rated 13lbs higher than his rating in this race.

There was a 5+ length gap between 9th and 10th so the remaining 6 runners in the race can be considered to have just been making up the numbers.

The form figures of the first 9 runners home on their next two starts combined were:

112111231213343233

If you had placed £20 each way on every single runner in the race on their next 2 starts you would have won £2,422!

What makes it even more amazing is that those figures are at SP. Many of those winners were available at much bigger prices early on.

How To Find Hot Races

The least labour intensive method of finding these races is to use the Hot Form report on a daily basis. Whenever this report highlights a horse running either today or tomorrow that has come from a hot race you can check the races in question and add any other runners of interest, that don’t have entries in the next 48 hours, to your trackers/alerts/notes.

If you want to get really ahead of the curve you can consistently look back at the results of every 3yo handicap to see which races those horses that are winning or running well have come from. You’ll soon spot the races that are beginning to work out well.

Two or three weeks after most races have been run you should see at least one or two horses will have run since to give an idea of the strength of the form. Races that are beginning to work out well (perhaps the 6th came out and finished 2nd next time or the 3rd has won since) can be bookmarked and checked regularly.

Why 3yo Races In Particular?

The classic generation tend to be much more lightly raced than their older counterparts. This gives us several advantages.

The first is that, however well handicapped we think a horse may be based on a run in a hot race, it’s likely they are going to improve again from the experience of the previous race and prove even better handicapped than we thought.

Even more improvement can be unlocked as 3yos change trips, usually going up in distance. For example, a stayer is probably only going to find opportunities at a mile and a quarter, maybe a mile and a half in April. It can be obvious that some horses are going to find 14f+ their ideal trip in time, and if they run particularly well in a race run over shorter they can be massively marked up, proving a strong bet when racing over further. Stepping up in trip several times will often offset any weight rises the handicapper has dictated.

Arguably the most profitable time to be backing 3yo handicappers is when they begin competing against their elders regularly in mid-summer. In 3yo only handicaps many races will contain several “could be anything” types in competition with each other. This puts a slight doubt over our bets even if we are confident we have a very well handicapped horse on our hands. Against older, more exposed runners such doubts are less prevalent. Then of course there is a weight for age allowance which tends to favour the younger generation over longer trips.

What To Make Of Subsequent Form

The more wins or strong runs from the subsequent form of a race, the more confident you can be that those who ran well in the race but are yet to run will replicate the subsequent runs of the other horses. This is simply because you have more evidence that the form was hot.

In determining how many runners to track from a hot race consider each runner’s proximity to those who have franked the form since. If the 5th and 6th in a race come out and win or run well and the 7th was only a neck behind those then chances are the 7th is similarly well handicapped as the 5th and 6th. If the 8th was three lengths further back, then that runner – and any behind him – may be of less interest. Of course, in this example the 1st to 4th are going to be most interesting going forwards in all likelihood.

It’s also important to mark some of the runners from each race up or down depending on how favoured they were by conditions. There is a ton of data on geegeez.co.uk about course pace bias and this, alongside draw data and also analysis of the pace of the race, can help to show the best runners to follow.

For example, in a ten-runner race at Chester that has worked out well, the 4th is probably going to be of more interest going forward than the runner up if the runner up was well placed from a low draw off a slow gallop and the 4th was held up from stall nine, even if two lengths separated the pair. Likewise, horses that ran well in spite of ground conditions can be marked up.

Another angle that shouldn’t be underestimated is that of class droppers. Upon finding a hot race make an extra note of any runners that might be capable of dropping in class. If they’ve run well in a strong race in a higher grade they could find a very easy opportunity further down the handicapping ladder. Any runners that appear in both the Hot Form report and also the Class Move report (for dropping in class) should be seriously considered.

Beware False Positives

Some 3yo handicaps will seemingly start working out very early on only to fail to throw up any further winners. The first runner to come out of a particular race, having finished 3rd for example, could win next time out giving the impression the race in which it took bronze was hot form.

If you’ve spotted this race early you’ll probably end up backing the next couple of runners from the race. It’s not uncommon for those two to run poorly and the race not to be hot form at all.

In these circumstances it’s likely that the 3rd home that won next time out was simply below par when 3rd and/or has improved significantly since. That or the race it went on to win was very weak.

In the same way that a horse that finishes 2nd or 3rd in a strong race will often have run better than a horse that wins a poor race, it’s important to consider the relative strength of subsequent form, not just the finishing positions achieved. It’s worth noting that’s not always possible if nothing has since come out of the race and that can just be the price of doing business in this kind of race.

Which Other Races Can Have ‘Hot Form’?

Any kind of race, in any code, can be strong for the grade and produce future winners. Three-mile chases full of seemingly exposed horses can still end up as hot form.

The reason I choose to concentrate on 3yo handicaps, other than the advantages that are set out previously in this article, is two or three months of going through handicap results at the beginning of the season can give you a year or so worth of runners to back. Many runners will take breaks after running in a hot race and not be seen for many months so they can be backed when reappearing later in the year.

The frustrating thing is lots of horses that have run in hot races are simply never seen again or sold to race abroad with better prize money on offer.

Another reason why 3yo hot form can be better to follow than older horses is because these horses have had fewer opportunities to become badly handicapped. If a 3yo handicap debutant ran well in a hot race it’s easy to make a case for it being well handicapped.

If a race full of exposed, older horses is working out well there is always a question mark over some of the remaining runners who ran well in the race: if they are well handicapped, why did they fail to win their previous three or four races off the same sort of mark? Sometimes there are valid excuses, sometimes there aren’t. That’s not to say those runners don’t go on to win also, it just creates more doubts ahead of backing them compared to the 3yos.

How Does The Coronavirus And Lack Of Early Flat Season Racing Affect This?

It’s impossible to be 100% sure and it probably depends if racing does indeed return in May as hoped.

There is reason to believe this could be the best season in a long time when it comes to finding hot races.

With fewer opportunities to run these well handicapped 3yos ahead of the big meetings such as Royal Ascot, it could result in much bigger fields than usual and force more well handicapped runners to compete against each other.

Instead of finding hot races where a couple of the seven or eight runners are of interest going forward, we may be now tracking six or seven runners from a 16-runner race. Bookies and punters tend to favour horses that have 1s, 2s and 3s in their form figures so we could see some seriously underestimated, well handicapped runners with form figures that are more often than not 5s and 6s rather than 1s and 2s.

With trainers likely to be keen to get a few runs into horses before those big targets they could be turned out slightly more quickly than normal which will also mean we can form a view about which races are becoming ‘hot’ quicker than usual.

Things could of course go the other way, though. Many of these ‘group horses in handicaps’ might end up skipping handicaps and going straight for bigger targets to make up for lost time. That’s part of the great uncertainty that makes betting on horses, and especially in 3yo handicaps, such fun!

- SD

Geegeez Gold Update, 19th March 2020

A quick update from me in the attached video, covering:

- Where we are with Irish racing

- What to do about your subscription

- Why we're dropping the paywall for now

p.s. Annual subscribers, if your subscription is not due any time soon, please keep it open for now. Contact me when we're racing again and I'll ensure you get either an extension for the downtime or a pro-rated refund. Thanks.