Hi Guys,

I haven't posted in a while and it's actually quite dull in here at the moment with almost no conversation happening. Are people talking/posting elsewhere, communicating via email or simply aren't interest or have nothing to add anymore?

Anyway I'm once again re-visiting the approach of speed mapping and betting on leaders at leader bias tracks. I've got a little spare time to research it as my other systems are now ticking along quite nicely after some tinkering in the last few months.

What i'm wondering is does anyone here mechanically establish speed maps or settling position calculations? I've been doing it myself for a while with some level of accuracy but i'm interested if anyone else does it and their approach. Obviously previous settling/turn positions play a pretty significant role but I'm just wondering if theres other areas I should be looking at or the approach others take.

All ideas/discussion is welcome as I'm happy to research whatever I can. Given one of CP's previous threads I think it can be pretty profitable if I can identify the likely leaders at a leader bias track. Ideally what the idea I have in my head is:

1) Identify if track/distance has leader bais, if yes:
2) Identify the likely forward runners (i.e. those settling top 3):
3) Of those likely leaders identify the one most likely to win and bet that horse

I think it has some promise, especially if it can be mechanically achieved with pre-race calculations and some refining. I've only tinkered with it a little so far just using the calcs i already use and some basic track/distance filtering and that already showed a profit but lacked some consistency.

Hi Josh,

How are you bud?

From the looks of your recent posts, world domination is nigh!

Agreed it's a little quiet on here at present. I'm super busy with other commitments but am still in the game big time on Saturdays.

I don't have a formula but I do pay a lot of attention to speed and where my horse should sit in running. Back in the day, I didn't realise it made such a difference and couldn't work out why the bookies had certain horses so short. I've found, it's because in most races with horses of limited ability, the chasers simply can't sprint off a slow speed.

Horses with low win strike rates and high place strike rates are more often than not, backmarkers. They get going when the bird has flown.

One thing I do always check before I even look at the form is the rail position, as this massively changes the equation especially on tight turning tracks like Ipswich etc.


Hope this adds a little spice to your 'Speed map curry'

__________________
The Schmile

"I buy when other people are selling.”
― J. Paul Getty

While im not ruling out the advantage of identifying leaders and those that race handy i kind of feel the whole thing is over blown when we start talking about track bias and leader tracks etc.

To me track bias is more field size and tempo issues. Larger fields will usually see a more genuine pace, smaller fields not as much.

Many many times ive heard all the Sydney commentators declare the track a leaders track, almost every time its a very weak meeting with fields of 8 runners or less. Then along comes the feature race later in the day with 14 or so runners and surprise surprise something comes from behind and wins it.

Just my take on it.

Hi All,

To us knowing the bias at or from a particular meeting is almost the most important single variable that we utilize in our probability assessments. Of course yes, its often not a bias but a perceived bias that is for example more pace related however if one has the tools and can identify the bias at the meeting quickly enough then they possess an enormous advantage. A good tip is to understand the tracks you are betting into and learn how wind, rail position and moisture content affect these tracks. If you are prepared to put in the work there are definitely benefits to be had.

In terms of speed mapping a simple solution is to obviously look for positions in running but often the majority of form guides don't have these for all races so that makes this task problematical depending on where you are betting. For us it's more about a horse's inherent early speed ability as well as other factors including but not limited to jockey and trainer intent. IMO using a simple model of PIR on settling won't enable you to develop maps that are reliable enough to make a difference but it's certainly a good way to get started.

__________________
Regards


Paul Daily - Ratings2Win Pty Ltd (Director)
R2W Axis - Axis is Australia's leading horse racing software and database; with sophisticated form analysis tools and accurate performance ratings that include Hong Kong.
http://www.ratings2win.com.au/

It's a complex subject Josh and to add to it, consider the term of "anti trend". It's when a horse finished with a placing against heavily unfavourable conditions. Happens every day, that's why hardly anyone wins long term. The unfavourable condition can refer to many things: track bias, positioning bias, jockey, class...blah, blah.

For instance consider a favourite in a race noted as 'front runner'. It wins, so what could you put that down to?:

1/ The horse had better all round ability than any other runners?
2/ The race was a lower class race and most horses in that class don't have chasing power?
3/ The race was run at a slow pace and so the horse didn't burn up all it's fuel early on, so it's win wasn't so extraordinary?
4/ It's win was an act of randomness, after all one of the horses has to win?

So to be able to tick a box and go, "yep, front runner, certain field size, track bias and rail position suit, isn't so simple as points 2,3 & 4 could have a bearing.

By way of being contrarian, I'd be narrowing the selection possibilities down to looking for "anti trend" horses. A horse, that despite a history of this or that, overcomes those difficulties in a recent race and should be rated with more favourable consideration than a horse that performs to average expectations in past runs. In other words the horse that upset at largish odds last time out....have a closer look this time out??

By way of an "anti trend" example, consider Hawkesbury 04 from yesterday:

Favourite: Moneylegs $2.80 Last 4: 1 3 4 2...came 2nd (as you would expect)
Worst Rank: Serendipity $10.50 Last 4: 0 8 1 9...came 1st!(what was it about that 2nd last race, that it won, compared to poor performances in races each side of that win? Are the conditions today matching the conditions of that 2nd last race?

Hey guys thanks for the replies. Apologies for not formulating a decent reply thus far as i've been flat out the last couple of days. I'll do my best to put together a reply tonight with some further thoughts etc.

Cheers

Hi guys,

I've tried to reply to each of you individually plus some additional queries/thoughts below:

TS:
To date I haven't taken into consideration rail position simply because I don't have the track data for rail position. But i'm thinking its maybe something I need to consider with my calculations.

Dale:
Definitely agree that tempo/pace has a bearing on if a particular race will be favourable to leaders or not. However there is definitely still bias at play particularly at certain tracks. For instance you cannot tell me Moonee Valley isn't leader bias. Everyone knows this including trainers, jockeys and punters. Yet still those who settle in front at MV do still have an advantage (in my opinion). What i'm looking at doing is simply finding other tracks/distance where there is such an advantage as well - which is evidenced by Chrome Prince's research in a different thread - and attempting to make a profit from that track bias by betting or laying the appropriate runner(s).

Paul:
Certainly understand that PIR data isn't probably enough to put together a premium speed map. However what i'm attempting to do is at least put together a solid speed map with freely available data. I understand your position given you sell said data/maps so I'd expect that your speed maps would be more accurate than mine giving the data inputs you most likely have at your disposal.

I'd be interested in your opinion Paul (and others) on what an acceptable strike rate of predicting the leader would be? i.e. I looked at a very small sample of my speed map predictions and in races <1800m my predicted leader did lead almost 38% of the time, and settled in the top 3 approx 72% of the time. I'm just wondering what type of accuracy I should be aiming for at a minimum (and please don't say 100%). I see it as a decent advantage if you know your predicted leader sits forward that often AND you rate the horses ability/class highly as well.

RCP:
The anti-trend idea makes sense from a form study point of view. However I'm not entirely sure how to apply it to predicting the leader of a race with higher accuracy etc. The anti-trend process is probably what needs to follow once I have a better grasp on deciding what races to bet and if my leader prediction is accurate etc.

Cheers guys