Punting 1.01

[FeelTheFear]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Thanks FTF. As a p.s., I meant to add that I wouldn't use raw strike rate to assess this (or anything for that matter). I think you need to use strike rate cf. expected strike rate. Mardi and I spent weeks trying to convince the powers that be at NZTR that you can't do this when we did some work for them assessing the impact of the changes in the handicap system a few years ago. Starting prices were not accurate enough to use for expected chance, though we found that actual handicap ratings were a reasonable proxy for that even though they were skewed in favour of females and higher rated horses. Problem was we didn't have that option for maiden races.

I'll come back to you on your time related questions when I get a chance.

cheers curious. Did a play around with time and other analysis with a market for 3 races today. Lots of work to do I am sure. Have highlighted top 4.

Horse	Rating	%	Market	FO
Howbowdat	16.1	3.0	$26.52	$7.00
Verry Flash	59.1	11.0	$7.25	$8.00	4th
Somethingvain	15.4	2.9	$27.74	$18.00
Soroc	56.9	10.6	$7.52	$9.50
O'Angel	49.8	9.3	$8.59	$8.50	3rd
Back In A Flash	93.6	17.5	$4.57	$4.60	1st
Ruby Love	80.3	15.0	$5.33	$9.00
Bit Lippy	78.0	14.6	$5.49	$4.80
Viktor Vegas	85.7	16.0	$4.99	$8.00	2nd
Indecision	106.5	28.3	$2.82	$4.80	1st
Rocanto	22.1	5.9	$13.63	$5.00	3rd
Santa Monica	89.3	23.8	$3.37	$4.20	2nd
Bella Gioia	84.9	22.6	$3.54	$8.50	4th
She's A Thief	12.3	3.3	$24.43	$4.20
Short Fuse	56.5	15.1	$5.31	$5.50
Power Dream	4.1	1.1	$73.40	$17.00
Jon Snow	97.9	22.5	$3.56	$5.00	3rd
Saint Emilion	52.9	12.1	$6.58	$12.00
Authentic Paddy	115.3	26.5	$3.02	$15.00	4th
Meeska Mooska	13.0	3.0	$26.81	$34.00
Lizzie L'Amour	80.4	18.4	$4.34	$4.40	2nd
Nicoletta	27.0	6.2	$12.89	$23.00
Danzdanzdance	49.2	11.3	$7.08	$1.85	1st

Edited December 26, 2018 by FeelTheFear

[FeelTheFear]

The G1 was hard to rate as many did not have any distance times in heavy conditions. 

[mardigras]

10 hours ago, curious said:

Because I thought it was interesting, and some have indicated that they are having a go at framing their own markets, I'm going to reactivate this thread with a few questions for the gurus on here and hopefully the thread can stay constructively on track.

Barryb and Mardi in particular, and anyone else with expertise and knowledge in this area,

1. When assessing a race or runner, how many variables do you consider? I do my main computer based assessment on ability across all performances. That is an assessment of where their performances sit against a series of track/condition/distance based benchmarks to rate the overall ability of the horse compared to others. It uses that info for all starts, irrespective of class, distance or track condition to assess the horse.

I then use that ability to assess the 'benchmark' level I think the horse is at.

After that, I use that ability and compare the assessment of that around under which conditions it performed at its highest and assess that against the conditions of the race it is in. To then adjust that time for the race distance, track condition, whether it shows a preference for left/right handed tracks to define a time for this race with an associated confidence in that time.

Factors I don't consider are weight, barrier, course stats (at this stage), jockey, trainer, win stats, prizemoney. 

I'm not against course stats (or prizemoney) - they relate to the horse itself which is a plus, but I only use them to reinforce, not change betting strategy. Reason being, I don't want to change chance for a runner with course stats, as that has to have a counter change - potentially against a runner that doesn't have the course stats - even though the other runner may have simply never raced there. If the horse becomes a horse I potentially want to back, it gains credence if it has associated course stats. That's all I use it for. Nothing wrong though in using them as far as I can see.

2. How much time on average do you spend assessing a single race or maybe 8 race meeting say (excluding any reassessment due to change of track condition, scratchings etc.)? All ability assessment is computer based. Around 80% of adjustment computer based. 20% based on revisiting those that are identified as bets, to ratify or question.

3. I know that Mardi uses apps for simulations to get his estimate of chance and maybe to assess his expected times. So, my question is what proportion of the assessment is software based and how much is done manually? All of that initial time assessment is computer based. My time assessment (based on ability benchmark aligned to current race conditions), plus a confidence based on suitability of race conditions to assessed ability, is then modeled. Currently uses a normal distribution but I'd prefer to use a distribution model that isn't necessarily normalised. That's for the future (you may be able to help me there curious!). The modeling is based on assessed time, with a normalised distribution of that time based on the confidence to get a standard deviation. Then running that for a race across all horses to get the chance each horse has of running first, second third etc, based on the simulated model. Again, not something useful to the general punter.

4. Mardi, I think you said somewhere that closing BF prices are a pretty good approximation of an accurate market. I'm also pretty sure I read a study (I think done in Hong Kong) showing that the correlation between closing tote prices and results was only about 35-40%. My question is, on events where there is sufficient volume for it to apply, how much better is a similar correlation with BF closing prices? I will do an extract for UK/Ire, Aus and NZ in the next day or so, that highlights this. And post it here.

barryb mentioned how 'fresh' NZ is as a marketplace. So it doesn't conform. Even Oz has some variances when I last looked. UK/Ire is pretty strong. So as you say, the volume is insufficient for the market to become efficient.

NZ markets tend to follow the bookies/TABs. I would suggest people essentially scalping off TAB markets due to their margins. And due to exposure limits, hoping to extract a share from that. Prices show a strong relationship with the likes of NZ TAB fixed odd offerings. In 'general', this market will aid layers, nit backers. The available bet is low for the higher odds and there are very limited numbers of layers prepared to risk much. 

I have given some responses inline. Sorry for the length.

But I will add a couple of separate things. I appreciate that what I say here isn't able to be done by punters in the main. But I've described a bot of it here nonetheless. A large part of what I do revolves around the many millions of individual runner start information I have which I use to allow me comparison of performance from one track to the next for varying levels of horse. Whether someone agrees or not is their choice. But my entire approach is based around an assessment of one horse compared to another. Not what one horse did last start and what therefore it might do next start. I've added a couple of extra comments.

a) There isn't just one approach. One person may do one thing and another something else. Or consider one thing whilst another does not. That doesn't validate or invalidate the different approaches. As I've said many times, there are many ways to achieve the goal - each of which can be viable.

I think that for sure, consider the advice. But at the end, you have to be comfortable doing what you do and if it does't feel right to you, then park that (and maybe collect some information for yourself as to how that may have changed your assessment). In the future, then you are armed with more information and able to better deal with what impact you think that might have.

a). Note: This does not mean what Thomass says has any justification. The BP is so generic, and can be proven to be of no value - such an idea is wasting your own time trying to validate it or otherwise. Population stats are going to be of little value unless it correlates to two things. Success and Price both not being inversely related to the stat. So it would likely have to be something very few know of or understand - and be 'real'. So really has to have a correlation with 'chance' and that correlation has to be well hidden. And they are highly unlikely to be so.

b) This is not a criticism of barry - who clearly understandings punting. The 21 day rule is something I don't subscribe to. It is too generic for me. It does stack up more so 'generically' in NZ and Oz than elsewhere. (And by that I mean, it can be applied across the board and not give you the negative results you will get from the BP). So it isn't a positive or a negative for me. But I would tend to assess the horse and determine the points in time in its individual racing that correspond with its best performances. That could be off shorter breaks - or longer breaks potentially. So I prefer the individual assessment as to what value a break has to a horse. The statistic likely reduces the frequency of losses, but whether it changes profit, I'm not so sure.

b).Note: This situation in my opinion comes about due to the number of horses that race in Australasia using the racecourse as a training exercise. Something against the rules of racing in the likes of UK/Ire. So horses starting over 3200m+ in UK/Ire will often do so off a 3 month/6 month/1 year+ break and be competitive based upon their previously displayed ability. NZ and Oz, have a scenario where horses will use races for fitness. Possibly why the 'stats' are the way they are for 21 days between races appearing favourable.

The way I do it isn't really something others can do. (Which kind of makes the likes of Thomass critiquing it, pointless).

 

[curious]

FTF, wrt time. I differ a bit from barryb a bit on this as I only use whole race time to assess ability and I use lifetime starts for that. I do not try to assess pace/tempo, use sectionals for anything etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that and some do that successfully. It may be that it is more important in NZ racing conditions. In the US the fastest sectional is usually the first whereas here it is usually the last. To use whole race times as an assessment of ability, the critical factor is to establish par times for different courses. This is much easier in the US where one track may race say 100 days a year, cf here where they may race 1 or 2 days. Somehow you have to be able to compare a time on one track and track condition with another. That requires establishing some sort of par times. I don't think raw times are much use at all. They need to be adjusted for both ability of the runner/s and unknown variables like whether the distance is accurate, track condition etc.

The Beyer speed ratings in the US were based on par times of track records. This is a reasonable proxy when you have several hundred events a year on a single track. Completely hopeless here so you need another way of establishing those. You may be further ahead than I on this. I've spent 18-24 months on and off trying to get a handle on this for Oz racing and only now am confident enough to probably start betting on Sydney Melbourne metro events next year though still a few wrinkles to work out. Still a bit at sea elsewhere in OZ.

There's quite a bit been written about establishing par times and a variety of ways of doing this. Usually this is a range (sometimes one standard deviation for example). Not sure what works best for NZ but do let me know if you find the answer to that FTF

 

 

[mardigras]

5 minutes ago, curious said:

FTF, wrt time. I differ a bit from barryb a bit on this as I only use whole race time to assess ability and I use lifetime starts for that. I do not try to assess pace/tempo, use sectionals for anything etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that and some do that successfully. It may be that it is more important in NZ racing conditions. In the US the fastest sectional is usually the first whereas here it is usually the last. To use whole race times as an assessment of ability, the critical factor is to establish par times for different courses. This is much easier in the US where one track may race say 100 days a year, cf here where they may race 1 or 2 days. Somehow you have to be able to compare a time on one track and track condition with another. That requires establishing some sort of par times. I don't think raw times are much use at all. They need to be adjusted for both ability of the runner/s and unknown variables like whether the distance is accurate, track condition etc.

The Beyer speed ratings in the US were based on par times of track records. This is a reasonable proxy when you have several hundred events a year on a single track. Completely hopeless here so you need another way of establishing those. You may be further ahead than I on this. I've spent 18-24 months on and off trying to get a handle on this for Oz racing and only now am confident enough to probably start betting on Sydney Melbourne metro events next year though still a few wrinkles to work out. Still a bit at sea elsewhere in OZ.

There's quite a bit been written about establishing par times and a variety of ways of doing this. Usually this is a range (sometimes one standard deviation for example). Not sure what works best for NZ but do let me know if you find the answer to that FTF

 

 

Yes curious, it is a difficult exercise. In NZ, they race on some tracks once a year. Makes the reliability of any data less useful. My aim has always been to establish a distance/condition/horse level/track scenario. Then use this as a measure of horse performance. Less performances to work with, less confidence etc.

And to barryb, I definitely didn't want to infer anything about what barryb does. I've been learning heaps from barry from these discussions. It's more that there are many ways. Not all of them wrong or negative.

Edited December 26, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

7 hours ago, mardigras said:

b).Note: This situation in my opinion comes about due to the number of horses that race in Australasia using the racecourse as a training exercise. Something against the rules of racing in the likes of UK/Ire.

I'm pretty sure that is against the rules of racing here also though it seems to be turned a blind eye to. To the point where trainers can publicly announce things like that a horse will "need the run".

[barryb]

6 hours ago, mardigras said:

Yes curious, it is a difficult exercise. In NZ, they race on some tracks once a year. Makes the reliability of any data less useful. My aim has always been to establish a distance/condition/horse level/track scenario. Then use this as a measure of horse performance. Less performances to work with, less confidence etc.

And to barryb, I definitely didn't want to infer anything about what barryb does. I've been learning heaps from barry from these discussions. It's more that there are many ways. Not all of them wrong or negative.

Like Mardi & Curious say NZ is a difficult assessment region because of the tracks with infrequent use, reliability of times etc. Which is why I spend time on settling position & tempo, these are much more likely to be universal. 

[curious]

7 hours ago, mardigras said:

Currently uses a normal distribution but I'd prefer to use a distribution model that isn't necessarily normalised

I'm curious Mardi why you would suspect that you might be better to use a non-normalised distribution. Is your time assessment data not normally distributed?

[curious]

22 minutes ago, barryb said:

Like Mardi & Curious say NZ is a difficult assessment region because of the tracks with infrequent use, reliability of times etc. Which is why I spend time on settling position & tempo, these are much more likely to be universal. 

That makes sense and if I ever figure NZ racing out to a point where I'm comfortable betting on it, I may have to do that. I should say that while I don't assess tempo or sectionals, I do assess settling position though in a historic way for individual runners, not in a predictive way for today's event as in a speed map. In that respect, you could say that I do assess opening sectionals in a way. Again however, that data is included in standard form guides in the US (time and position after 400m). I don't know if it is for NZ without doing a lot of work?

[hesi]

1 hour ago, curious said:

I'm pretty sure that is against the rules of racing here also though it seems to be turned a blind eye to. To the point where trainers can publicly announce things like that a horse will "need the run".

636

(1) A person:

(a) shall not run a horse, or cause or permit a horse to be run, other than on its merits;

(b) being the Rider of a horse in a Race, must take all reasonable and permissible measures throughout the Race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win the Race or to obtain the best possible finishing place;

[curious]

Maybe "its merits" allow for its current state of fitness?

[hesi]

It's a bit vague isn't it

Unless there is something else more definitive within the rules of racing

[mardigras]

2 hours ago, curious said:

I'm curious Mardi why you would suspect that you might be better to use a non-normalised distribution. Is your time assessment data not normally distributed?

The only part I've considered not using a normal distribution is when I model the times. Rather than have a mean where 50% of the performances are faster than the mean and 50% are slower then the mean (excluding those that equal the mean), when the confidence is lower, I've been thinking I'd prefer the high and low times to be the same (i.e. +/- 3 sd of the normal mean), but where the resulting mean time of the distribution is higher than the normally distributed mean. A slightly weighted distribution based on my lower confidence under the race conditions. 

Another factor I use for confidence is on race starts. Fewer starts reduces confidence, as there is less ability to cater for outlier type performance data.

[mardigras]

42 minutes ago, hesi said:

It's a bit vague isn't it

Unless there is something else more definitive within the rules of racing

I think the rule pretty much allows them to run an under fit horse on the track for the purpose of improving its fitness. That is not good from a punter confidence perspective.

[hesi]

What about the regularly occurring situation of running a stayer fresh up in a 1200m sprint, to improve fitness I presume, knowing it could never win, because it simply does not have the basic speed

[curious]

14 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I think the rule pretty much allows them to run an under fit horse on the track for the purpose of improving its fitness. That is not good from a punter confidence perspective.

Yeahh and that was exacerbated a few years back now when there was a push to start horses in races in preference to trials for that purpose to increase starter numbers. It was particularly so when we had free racing so it became more cost effective to "trial" horses on racedays rather than at trials and there was a concurrent significant increase in trial fees. I said at the time it was folly because it would reduce punter confidence if they could not know whether horses were there to try and win or were just racing for conditioning purposes. I think that move is yet another thing that has come back to bite them on the bum in terms of revenue. I.e., pursuit of a target of starter numbers to increase revenue, failing to understand the situation from a wagering perspective. It was based on falsely interpreted data anyway in regard to the relationship between starter numbers and turnover. They saw higher turnover in races with higher number of starters but ignored the fact that turnover per runner was higher in races with less starters (at least 7+). Plain stupid.

Edited December 26, 2018 by curious

[mardigras]

2 hours ago, barryb said:

Like Mardi & Curious say NZ is a difficult assessment region because of the tracks with infrequent use, reliability of times etc. Which is why I spend time on settling position & tempo, these are much more likely to be universal. 

There are tracks in NZ that for a combination of distance, condition, there has only been one race over the last 10-15 years. Pretty much useless. And with less racing, less confidence. I've only got a little over 20,000 starts at Ellerslie. Compared to over 100,000 at tracks like Wolverhampton and 50,000+ at most of the metro oz tracks.

[mardigras]

6 minutes ago, hesi said:

What about the regularly occurring situation of running a stayer fresh up in a 1200m sprint, to improve fitness I presume, knowing it could never win, because it simply does not have the basic speed

You simply will not get this in UK/Ire. 

[hesi]

Is this why we see stayers coming from the UK, and going directly into staying races in Aus, like the Melbourne Cup and other races.

All the conditioning work is done on the training track

[mardigras]

4 minutes ago, hesi said:

Is this why we see stayers coming from the UK, and going directly into staying races in Aus, like the Melbourne Cup and other races.

All the conditioning work is done on the training track

Yep. They train them to get them fit. Admittedly, they have facilities that give them a lot of options. But they still do the same when they take them to Australia and manage to get them to race fitness at the quarantine centre.

Race in the UK overnight. Often the first starter NH types will run in a NH flat. The winner of this race was having its first start.

https://www.sportinglife.com/racing/results/2018-12-26/huntingdon/505775/fitzdares-gaviscon-vase-intermediate-open-nh-flat-race

Nearly half the field were first starters. Just shy of 3200m.

[curious]

4 minutes ago, hesi said:

Is this why we see stayers coming from the UK, and going directly into staying races in Aus, like the Melbourne Cup and other races.

All the conditioning work is done on the training track

Yes. There are countless examples but a memorable one for me, and this is going back to the seventies, is Alleged. As a four year old he won the Royal Whip in the spring and didn't race again till autumn due to health issues. His first start back he broke the Longchamp 10f course record in the Prix du Prince d'Orange before going on to win his second Arc in his only other start.

I really wish they would look at this here if they seriously want to increase attractiveness of the product to punters and increase wagering revenue.

[curious]

This is another problem with trying to assess chance in NZ events. You can assess suitability but it is hard to assess fitness. In the UK and US you can assume it.

[hesi]

Another aspect related to punters

D4 New Plymouth, D6 Rotorua, yet quite a few fields are decimated by scratchings, leaving 6 and 7 horse fields which punters may find unattractive and affects the clubs betting on the day

Surely you should only be able to scratch a horse for vet reasons or unsuitable change in track conditions

[mardigras]

7 minutes ago, curious said:

This is another problem with trying to assess chance in NZ events. You can assess suitability but it is hard to assess fitness. In the UK and US you can assume it.

In NZ/OZ, I tend to look at the horses history to identify how they go about getting the level of fitness to be where they want it. It's not ideal. Not much use for a horse having its 3rd start.

Edited December 26, 2018 by mardigras

[curious]

10 minutes ago, hesi said:

Another aspect related to punters

D4 New Plymouth, D6 Rotorua, yet quite a few fields are decimated by scratchings, leaving 6 and 7 horse fields which punters may find unattractive and affects the clubs betting on the day

Surely you should only be able to scratch a horse for vet reasons or unsuitable change in track conditions

I quite like 6 - 7 horse fields as betting propositions and generally they have the highest turnover per runner.