My form-based betting has usually been limited to U.S. racing, and my UK and Irish betting activity has been limited to trading (without analysis of past performances).
I would be interested in playing around with some form-based betting on UK and Irish flat races, but when I have searched via Google for past performance information (similar to what one would find in the "Daily Racing Form" in the U.S.), I mainly only get U.S. results or non-relevant results.
If I look on sites like The Racing Post or Sporting Life, I can find simple race cards, but I can't seem to find anything with race-by-race past performance information.... can you one of you guys please point me in the right direction? Many thanks!
Past Performance Racing Form Data for UK & Irish Flat Racing
By the way, for those who have experience with form-based betting on both U.S. and UK and/or Irish flat racing, if you have any thoughts to share regarding any differences or nuances to beware of between the racing on the two sides of the Atlantic, I would be keen to hear your thoughts. My form-based betting experience is limited to U.S. racing...
-
JollyGreen
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:06 am
Hi Nomadic
The biggest difference between UK & Irish racing and US racing is the different types of tracks here in the UK and the general lack of sectional times.
In the US they all go left handed, sectional times are readily available, closing times, pace etc. They have Beyer ratings that everyone now has access to and that means the edge has gone in terms of price value. I don't mean that to be a derogatory comment and I know it is a bit of a generalisation but I am sure you know what I mean.
About 15 years ago I started to compile my own speed ratings and also using sectional times. There was no sky + in those days so it was a library of VHS tapes where I could record a race, play it back and use my stopwatch to record the times. It paid off but man was it hard work. I then started to get lazy and stopped with the speed figures and started to use Timeform. I discovered a way of calculating speed figures quickly and comparing them to Timeform figures and official handicap marks. It worked very well and I had a tremendous strike rate. It then seemed to stop working and I found it was no longer profitable. I thought perhaps it was a change in ratings and a good friend reckoned Timeform changed their ratings - I can't confirm that. Basically it was down to others picking up on it and now the 4/1 certainty was a 2/1 certainty so the edge was gone and profits followed a downward trend.
I then started to use Superform because whilst they did create ratings, they also had excellent race readers and they flagged up alleged non-triers, horses that were gambled etc. It was Manna from Heaven if you knew how to interpret them. I was totally gutted when they decided to call it a day. They didn't go bust, they just decided it wasn't worth it anymore and I sorely miss them.
You can get ratings from Timeform, Raceform, Racing Post etc. The big problem is that everyone else gets the same ratings so the big rating will leap off the page and the price will reflect that! The bookies get the same ratings so they will price up accordingly and a horse that should be 2.00 will be on offer at 1.80 and we all know that is the quickest way to lose your money.
There are lots of others like Dataform and Proform but again, everyone sees the same numbers. There are not many people supplying sectional times but then again the edge from that is also gone now because many people have them. I am referring to private punters that calculate their own sectional times.
I know this may all sound a bit negative and you may already know about the problems of everyone else having the same figures. I apologise if that is the case, I am just trying to be honest.
I think that these days, the ratings from the Racing Post are pretty good and they have a huge online database that is accessible online. I believe that to get the best from these ratings you have to apply your own slant to them. I tend to watch recordings of the race and look for horses that get an "easy ride", horses that need to run on firm ground based on breeding and their past results but have been running on soft ground. They are readily dismissed by the summariser in racing publications simply because they can't be arsed to spend too much time on analysis or because they simply don't have the time available.
That is about the only way to make it pay in the UK. It's almost impossible to compare times from course to course because of how different the courses can be. It's also hard to compare ratings from the same course because they move the rails, the ground is not recorded correctly etc. The All Weather is about your best bet for straight comparison but then you need to check how they have harrowed the track, the weather etc. The other problem with AW racing is the low quality of the horses where they could run the same race 6 times and have 6 different winners.
I'd say use the Racing Post racings and then use your own reading of a race to adjust the ratings.
I know there is no definitive answer in this post but it is a truthful one. I could write much more about trainer patterns etc but I'd be here for a week.
If you want to know more then just ask.
The biggest difference between UK & Irish racing and US racing is the different types of tracks here in the UK and the general lack of sectional times.
In the US they all go left handed, sectional times are readily available, closing times, pace etc. They have Beyer ratings that everyone now has access to and that means the edge has gone in terms of price value. I don't mean that to be a derogatory comment and I know it is a bit of a generalisation but I am sure you know what I mean.
About 15 years ago I started to compile my own speed ratings and also using sectional times. There was no sky + in those days so it was a library of VHS tapes where I could record a race, play it back and use my stopwatch to record the times. It paid off but man was it hard work. I then started to get lazy and stopped with the speed figures and started to use Timeform. I discovered a way of calculating speed figures quickly and comparing them to Timeform figures and official handicap marks. It worked very well and I had a tremendous strike rate. It then seemed to stop working and I found it was no longer profitable. I thought perhaps it was a change in ratings and a good friend reckoned Timeform changed their ratings - I can't confirm that. Basically it was down to others picking up on it and now the 4/1 certainty was a 2/1 certainty so the edge was gone and profits followed a downward trend.
I then started to use Superform because whilst they did create ratings, they also had excellent race readers and they flagged up alleged non-triers, horses that were gambled etc. It was Manna from Heaven if you knew how to interpret them. I was totally gutted when they decided to call it a day. They didn't go bust, they just decided it wasn't worth it anymore and I sorely miss them.
You can get ratings from Timeform, Raceform, Racing Post etc. The big problem is that everyone else gets the same ratings so the big rating will leap off the page and the price will reflect that! The bookies get the same ratings so they will price up accordingly and a horse that should be 2.00 will be on offer at 1.80 and we all know that is the quickest way to lose your money.
There are lots of others like Dataform and Proform but again, everyone sees the same numbers. There are not many people supplying sectional times but then again the edge from that is also gone now because many people have them. I am referring to private punters that calculate their own sectional times.
I know this may all sound a bit negative and you may already know about the problems of everyone else having the same figures. I apologise if that is the case, I am just trying to be honest.
I think that these days, the ratings from the Racing Post are pretty good and they have a huge online database that is accessible online. I believe that to get the best from these ratings you have to apply your own slant to them. I tend to watch recordings of the race and look for horses that get an "easy ride", horses that need to run on firm ground based on breeding and their past results but have been running on soft ground. They are readily dismissed by the summariser in racing publications simply because they can't be arsed to spend too much time on analysis or because they simply don't have the time available.
That is about the only way to make it pay in the UK. It's almost impossible to compare times from course to course because of how different the courses can be. It's also hard to compare ratings from the same course because they move the rails, the ground is not recorded correctly etc. The All Weather is about your best bet for straight comparison but then you need to check how they have harrowed the track, the weather etc. The other problem with AW racing is the low quality of the horses where they could run the same race 6 times and have 6 different winners.
I'd say use the Racing Post racings and then use your own reading of a race to adjust the ratings.
I know there is no definitive answer in this post but it is a truthful one. I could write much more about trainer patterns etc but I'd be here for a week.
If you want to know more then just ask.
Jolly Green - thanks very much for the wealth of information. Much appreciated. I suppose the absence of mid-race information is the main reason why I was coming up empty when searching for a British equivalent of the Daily Racing Form. It also answers a question that I had long been curious about regarding why on U.S. race forms that information seemed to be limited/missing on races horses had run in the UK. I'm surprised that there's not more demand for the type of (mid-race) information in the UK - is it just not considered useful due to certain nuances in British racing versus American racing?
By the way, since your experience obviously pre-dates Betfair, although the increased distribution of data has whittled away at your edge over time, has the use of betfair and its smaller overrounds fully or only partially offset that deterioration?
By the way, since your experience obviously pre-dates Betfair, although the increased distribution of data has whittled away at your edge over time, has the use of betfair and its smaller overrounds fully or only partially offset that deterioration?