Racing to Profit Members Club: Ratings Sets Analysis
…Helping you find more winners >>>
This document analyses three sets of ratings pointers used within the Members’ Posts to help those of you who use my Section 2 stats qualifiers as a ‘way in/starting point’.
The three ratings sets I use: Horse Race Base / Inform Speed / Geegeez Speed
Using these rating sets adds ‘ratings substance’ alongside my trainer stats qualifiers – a guide of sorts to the ability of the horse against today’s opposition, based on what they’ve achieved to date.
This version is revised from the original posted recently, with both the addition of Geegeez Speed analysis, and a revision to the figures used so that they are more comparable/useful.
I’ve used the win% of the ratings pointer against the total number of winners. (which in effect is the total number of said races, bar for the odd dead-heat etc)
EG: Horse Race Base Top Rated (H1) runners win 27% of all handicap hurdles with 8 or fewer runners.
This information should only be used as a guide to help with punting decisions, and as part of further analysis. By all means print off the tables and keep them handy.
How to use this information?
With any luck this report helps you to find a few more winners, if you like using my stats content as a ‘way in’, especially Section 2 – the qualifiers against my Trainer Track Profiles reports.
You could simply shortlist any horse with a ratings pointer, ignoring those without. This report helps highlight which ratings, in which race type and field size may be best and you may decide to focus on a few specific conditions. (EG you could just focus on 8< runner races, or 8-12)
From this starting point, you’re free to get to work on further race/horse analysis.
There’s no right or wrong way to this given race analysis/approach is very subjective.
Some brief thoughts… and they are only that as so many of the areas below could be a stand alone blog post/video (and maybe they will be one day)
Generally speaking you’re either going for a ‘been there and done it’ type – proven in all conditions, who’s mark may be below their last winning mark. These are more exposed.
You’re going to the other end – the thoroughly unexposed, should be more to come, ‘will it be today?’ type.
Or indeed something in the middle – that’s shown enough/has won etc, but where there should be more improvement to come. Generally still considered ‘young’
If you’re going for the ‘been there and done it’ type, i’d argue that you want as few ‘unexposed’ types in the race as possible. The more there are, the less of a betting proposition the race may be for the exposed/older legs. An exception may be when it’s a true stamina test/a slog – going with hardier/proven types there is an option. And always pay close attention to those horses that like winning/often run their race/like a battle.
You could just ignore anything priced under 9/2. That could be a crude cut off but I’m a firm believer that it’s very hard to win long term at the top end of the market – well certainly consistently backing horses under 7/2 – obviously at that end of the market you have to be right far more often and being right in this game is tough. I think it’s also harder to assess value/whether a horse is overpriced. That’s personal preference but the 9/2>12/1 range could be a place to focus.
You could decide whether it’s a race to get involved in – especially if your shortlisted horse is a bigger price, and it’s a race with a few ‘shorties’ in. In essence you’re asking ‘can the market be that wrong’ especially if there’s say an 8 runner race with one at 6/4 and two at 3s say > that’s an implied probability of 90% for the top three in the market.
So, you could make a quick assessment of the fav/second fav etc, and whether there are enough chinks to take them on. Obviously if you like betting EW this opens up other options, but you’d still want to assess some weakness at the top of the market. Of course if it’s 4s/5s the field it may suggest it’s open.
This is the difficult bit. I personally prefer the ‘in between’ profile – they’ve shown enough where you can make an assessment as to their ability – but there could be more to come (their age/young/not very many runs/not many hncp wins etc)
PACE/RACE POSITION… always crucial – you could be strict and just stick with horses you think will try and make all/or will race prominently. Simply avoid hold up horses. You’ll get the odd one wrong, but this is about a long term strategy/approach.
You could assess why you expect them to improve today?
- Was there an excuse/reason for why they ran as they did LTO? (if seemingly not ‘in form’ on paper) You could of course stick to horses who obviously ran well LTO.
- Did they need the run LTO? Eg was it their first run of the season, did they run well for a long way?
- Are they moving in distance, up or down? Does this look like it will suit?
- Are they moving in class, preferable down in class? A run at a higher level can be marked up, even if seemingly well beaten, especially if today’s oppo are much weaker.
- Do they have decent ‘back form’ – have they competed at a higher class / better races/ better tracks than today?
- Do they have Hot Form? Have they been running in races that have produced subsequent winners? This is always a positive.
- You need to assess whether they are well-handicapped. Hot form helps with this, as does an assessment of RPRs. In general with lightly raced horses it can be best to assume there’s more to come.
- Does the horse have course form?
- Is the trainer in form? (or not obviously out of form) Any other trainer stats?
- Is there a jockey change? Is this significant? Jockey Stats. (inc with trainer)
- What else are they doing different? And will this lead to improvement?
There’s plenty more you could consider including whether the horse is suited to, or could improve for … the course, distance, going, race set up etc. And an assessment of their jumping.
As always you’re weighing up what you know about the horse and what you don’t, assessing the pros and cons against their price, and the oppo. Does the price allow a risk to be taken? (as a crude example- they’re unproven over the distance but you think they will relish it – taking 3s on such a horse may be daft, 8s less so)
Ultimately everything is a game of price, and assessing whether the horse is value against what you know, and what you don’t.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts.
If you’ve any interest in using the Section 2 qualifiers/ratings pointers as a ‘way in’ I hope that may help.
You’re free to map out an approach to take, including what ratings pointers, field size, and what factors you wish to consider.
Less can be more, and having some sort of ‘strategy’ to analysis may be no bad thing.