How to start

[Leodis]

Considering that all this stuff ( being polite) is historical and as you point out the most important player in the game could not possibly utalise it - is it all just noise ?

I know some trainers employ racing advisors nowadays, but even their workload must be hectic, having to analyse every race and runner that the trainer has a horse entered in, 24/7

 

[Chesham]

yeah have spoken to Bob as well,only be email correspondence and he was kind enough to send an addendum to the book,which was stuff that he later added but for time reasons did not have time to put in the book -his time figures are do-able as their based on an athletic running model originally comprised in 1973 but he's took bits and pieces of other areas too -he's only updated this to change the parameters from humans to horses - the downfall is where he gets into the form rating side - you would need a massive amount of computational power to run and constantly iterate the collateral form side as it brings in the concept of back handicapping -i know of one medium sized UK betting syndicate(basically a group of ex-Tony Bloom employees who had moved into racing from football/sports betting) who tried to implement his whole rating procedure but the form rating side was too cost intensive, similar to another UK betting syndicate who employed Simon Rowlands for a few months work to implement his video sectional method many years ago before we had even TPD sectionals but again it was too cost intensive. Thing is these things can be done if having enough manpower and the smarts -there are a couple of Australian mobs who still validate sectionals by video as the evidence is out there (and has been for a long time) that GPS timing has had it's problems since Trackus onwards in accuracy etc. Whilst the genial John Whitley(Racing Research) has built a totally automated computer handicapping system that can "back handicap" instantly as long as the data is continually updated.

But you implied they are "Groups of Losers" - most of the people who play at that level you would not even know their names, as it's a secretive world - Zeljko's partner David Walsh( a genuine math prodigy) has made that much money from "locating abnormal patterns in the way ALL prices are structured" has even built his own conceptual museum , MONA back in his homeland in Hobart
Mona – Museum of Old and New Art | Hobart, Tasmania all funded from maximised value betting.
Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham made so much money from Asian handicap betting in football , they bought their own football teams, Brighton and Brentford and use the same "Moneyball" principles and a "Value" approach to expand those teams using data and analytics - Now it's common for every football team of note to have a data/analytics research department.
Alan Woods had companies and shares in tech,media,manufacturing,and played the financials the same way he approached horse racing by using a "Value" orientated approach - he was also one of the biggest players on Betfair before he died. Zeljko is one the top 4 biggest players on Betfair and has 4 account managers but because of the advantage he holds he is on a bespoke commission rate as well as top rate Premium Charge. Don't know about scanners but i do know of a few Irish mobs who were using "drones" to find an edge within "in-running" betting on Betfair.
You talk of "hanky panky" but that "hanky panky" is only true Value betting by having better and more accurate probabilities than the market makers.The work that goes into creating those probabilities involves advanced math, statistical analysis and sheer hard graft and when they spot a "rick" or an error within the market makers product they maximise it till it's bled dry. They are advantage gamblers through and through and no matter the game they will find a way to beat it legitimately. I have corresponded with ex-Benter and ex-Woods employees as well as watch a syndicate work up close - they play a straight game as there is no honour amongst gamblers when the game is rigged or cheating is involved - they dismiss inside information as most of it is bullshit anyway as within one race their could be 3 to 4 horses at least trying or ready to run to their maximum ability or improve.

ArkRoyal - I think that was the conclusion with the data/research i saw on a couple of football data blogs - a higher % of "aways" and "draws" compared to (if memory serves) think it was the previous 10 years data. One blog broke it down by major leagues and the %'s were significant enough to matter overall. The amount of statistics used in football now has probably increased 10 fold even over just the last 5 years - what started with xG (Expected Goals) has boomed into a data explosion that has caught up and maybe even surpassed with the statistical world of Baseball, Basketball & American Football (Baseball & the Sabermetrics community created by Bill James is really where all this started, those that think it started with "Moneyball" and Billy Beane's Oakland A's are sadly mistaken - he just took Bill James metrics and measurements and used them to quantify value in buying and selling players (although he was the first to try it, rather then the normal "scouting" procedure used by coaches for donkey's years) but Bill James was doing this in the mid 70's as a hobby and then by publishing The yearly Annual Baseball Almanac.
No wonder guys like Tony Bloom and Matthew Benham have teams of around 150-200 employees collecting this explosion of football data globally and using it to bet through Asian Brokers.

Hi MySportsAI

If ARAZI91 pops in again, he usually has a break from the Forum and then returns for a short while. He is the person that you need to have a discussion with on all things that you are interested in researching

 

[tacker]

It strikes me that JIB approach can only be the start, it mirrors what the handicapper is doing and therefore will only mirror him which wont lead to profit. OK using them to detect wellin horses may move the bottom line up a little but its going to take more than that. One extra step may be instead of saying the top X horses average is the class of the race and so a horse ran to a rating based on that, one could then look at the pace shape of the race and run of the horses and upgrade or downgrade that horses rating. For example if a horse ran from the back in a slow race it may well do to add extra points to his rating. Similarly you could assign a confidence range to the average 6 calculation based on the exposure of the horses. You may be more confident that those 6 horses that have run over 20 times is a more confident basis than a race with 6 horses who are 3yo's and running fewer than 10 times. The final step would be to take these 'weights' or confidence intervals and run an optimization algorithm on them over a set of training data. This will find the optimum weight to assign to these weights. You would then test them on unseen data and hopefully they would stand up. If you are simply eyeballing your ratings then a confidence rating alongside a rating would allow you to take it more or less seriously

Hi MySportsAI , I agree wholeheartedly that JIB can only be a start, surely goes without saying doesn't it ?
I've never understood why JIB would only include the top 6 in the betting, makes little sense to me but the basics of wanting to arrive at a average OR rather than simply rely on a class/grade number is pointless, my own view is that you both need to take notice of the whole race but also consider breaking the race into groups before and after the result is known.
There are no limits to whatever else you might want to include into the mix but the more you throw in the more work there is, which can be very time consuming.
I recognise this sort of thing is your forte and would suggest you might have a good think and start a new thread with perhaps one of your articles from your site, it's somewhat fundamental to anyone interested in "form" but no pressure.

 

[MySportsAI]

Hi MySportsAI , I agree wholeheartedly that JIB can only be a start, surely goes without saying doesn't it ?
I've never understood why JIB would only include the top 6 in the betting, makes little sense to me but the basics of wanting to arrive at a average OR rather than simply rely on a class/grade number is pointless, my own view is that you both need to take notice of the whole race but also consider breaking the race into groups before and after the result is known.
There are no limits to whatever else you might want to include into the mix but the more you throw in the more work there is, which can be very time consuming.
I recognise this sort of thing is your forte and would suggest you might have a good think and start a new thread with perhaps one of your articles from your site, it's somewhat fundamental to anyone interested in "form" but no pressure.

On the question of evaluating class you mention one method ie the class grade number but you could also in addition to the JIB method use race value. Now what I would want to know is which is superior. To get a handle on that we could need to test all 3. What do we mean by test, well a simple test could be to test all 3 in terms of how horses work out dropping in class according to the 3 methods. I did this some time ago for class number and rave value and race value was superior. Going even further you could evaluate the performance of top ranked horses according to each rating although class category would be a somewhat blunt instrument for this

 

[tacker]

On the question of evaluating class you mention one method ie the class grade number but you could also in addition to the JIB method use race value. Now what I would want to know is which is superior. To get a handle on that we could need to test all 3. What do we mean by test, well a simple test could be to test all 3 in terms of how horses work out dropping in class according to the 3 methods. I did this some time ago for class number and rave value and race value was superior. Going even further you could evaluate the performance of top ranked horses according to each rating although class category would be a somewhat blunt instrument for this

I'm trying to encourage you to go down this road MySportsAI , now it might be very few will be interested, no matter but this JIB thought process might have more value in a 6 runner race than a 30 runner race ?
The major point here is it not that the average or and however you approach it is fundamental to " form reading " or do you disagree ?

 

[MySportsAI]

I'm trying to encourage you to go down this road MySportsAI , now it might be very few will be interested, no matter but this JIB thought process might have more value in a 6 runner race than a 30 runner race ?
The major point here is it not that the average or and however you approach it is fundamental to " form reading " or do you disagree ?

I neither agree not disagree but I would want to find out which produces better results, that would guide me as to which to adopt if I was interested in using OR as a guide to selections. I will see if I can find time to run through this using all 3 approaches but I am travelling tomorrow and I have a few other things on the back burner so it wont be this week

 

[MySportsAI]

In the meantime this may be of interest Recent Form and Class

 

[BC]

I've never understood why JIB would only include the top 6 in the betting, makes little sense to me but the basics of wanting to arrive at a average OR rather than simply rely on a class/grade number is pointless, my own view is that you both need to take notice of the whole race but also consider breaking the race into groups before and after the result is known.

T tacker JIB was very astute. He'll have had his reasons, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it if I were you.

 

[tacker]

T tacker JIB was very astute. He'll have had his reasons, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it if I were you.

Fair enough BC , not sure i was dismissing the logic but agreeing with the idea that there is so much more that needs exploring when it comes to average official ratings, this isn't the right thread to get into it.

 

[Chesham]

Was never a Member of the Gummy Site but got well with Jib on the Peach Forum .

This is JiB in full flow. Just came it across it on the Gummy Archive

• Mtoto,

• As promised here are my comments. I wouldnt want you, Guest or Fulham to think that I am hostile to yourselves or the ideas you expound on this thread. I separate you three from some of the others because it is obvious from reading both the content and the tone of your posts that you have undertaken to make a serious and profound study of this subject and such a laborious endeavour is something that I admire and leaves me quite humble. Having said that after 160+ pages this thread has, if I may borrow from the bard, become a barbers chair that fits all bums. The efforts of yourselves doesnt, despite all your effort and good intentions, mitigate some of the spurious and dubious posts that appear from time to time on this thread. These correspondants, and the word that springs to mind is squirrels, have in the interests of all to be challenged and taken on. Please do not think that because they purport to be your allies in philosophy that any attack against them is hostility directed at yourselves. But more of the squirrels later on.I am sorry you did not post on the debate I wanted to start about weight as I know from Swish that you have given the matter much thought and I had hoped to learn something. Perhaps the opportunity will arise in the future. I said above that I admire the work that you three have put into vdw, though as I am sure you know I cant wholeheartedly agree with its overall importance in winner finding.As most racing is of a relatively humble nature, (I think 95% of all races must be below listed class) the factors that vdw preaches are far less clear almost in the same proportion that trainer and jockey ability become a significant factor. That vdw could so largely ignore this area is as astounding as it detracts from his relevance. 60 odd pages ago I ventured to suggest that vdw had, in the Roushayd example, begun to realise the importance of this omission. I postulated that it might be profitable to try reading vdws articles with less of a Janet and John approach and more as the product of a man and his times. I still maintain that, and you might like to consider that even at the very highest levels of class the trainer ability is a vital factor. For if it wasnt it would be hard to explain the sucess of that wee lad with glasses at Ballydoyle.Another area where I feel vdw is missing the whole picture is in the importance of breeding. Just after the 2000 guineas Stephen Mainwaring posted that Hawk Wing would not win the Derby because his sire stats showed only a 4% SR at 12f. Short, sweet and for some cruelly accurate. Be honest when the going is soft dont you look for progeny of Turtle Island?I am not saying that the vdw approach is wrong but it is sometimes inappropriate and can lead people away from more obvious ways of finding the winner of a race. I think that having a vdw thread is a good idea if we can discuss the subject along these lines after all no one of us owns the truth.Which brings us back to the squirrels like statajack, crock and bensam. As you may be aware a squirrel is a lightweight, furry, little rodent who for fear of his safety has chosen to live in the lofty tops of trees.. For the squirrel its greatest treasure is a little hoard of nuts that it neurotically keeps hidden from view. If any other animal should accidently approach his hidden treasure the squirrel becomes agitated jumping from tree branch to tree branch making a series of angry noises in the form of a rapid chittering and chattering. It will often run off in a different direction to the hoard in the hope of deceiving its perceived enemy. The squirrel suffers from the error of believing that other animals are interested in its pathetic little store whereas the vast majority regard the little nuts as worthless. As vdw can be quite turgid these little bouts of light relief can provide a a modicum of much needed charm and if as a result the squirrels learn to be more sociable all our interests can be servedRegards JIB

 

[BC]

Fair enough BC , not sure i was dismissing the logic but agreeing with the idea that there is so much more that needs exploring when it comes to average official ratings, this isn't the right thread to get into it.

It's all well above my pay grade. But one thought occurred to me: perhaps by using only the first 5 or 6 in the race, he was grading it by the runners most likely to be competitive on the day. This might avoid unnecessarily watering down the race rating.

As I say, just a thought.

 

[BC]

Here is JIB explaining the history of how we came to use weight in handicapping:

Admiral Rous by John in Brazil>

I wonder whether he ever completed that article? If anyone knows, I'd love to read it.

 

[tacker]

Here is JIB explaining the history of how we came to use weight in handicapping:

Admiral Rous by John in Brazil>

I wonder whether he ever completed that article? If anyone knows, I'd love to read it.

A very impressive contribution that in my opinion opens up all manner of interesting questions, i won't try and pursue them here but thanks for sharing BC .

 

[Chesham]

Thanks for that BC I remember you posting that on another forum that you ran and enjoyed it immensely

Had to laugh at this

 

[Chesham]

Just came across this from JIB and sums up his way of working and fits in with the post that I made today




How to start

 

[Chesham]

This was one of JIBS Pre Race. (Sandown ) I know he was into pedigrees too and that’s why he liked the Roushayd Example as it went back to 2 y-0 days . Although he said that it was not in the speed fig improvement in the Roushayd example , but the gradual placements that the trainer made to bring the horse along . Keeping in mind that JIB was not a fan of all the cryptic VDW manure or even a fan of his work. However he could see the Roushayd example the same way as he would approach “Winner In A Race”

 

[Chesham]

Worth A Read
American Turf Monthly

 

[Chesham]

See Below
Uk Betting Forum Common Race of Day

This is an exceptional addition to the analytical toolbox. The excerpt perfectly articulates the fundamental flaw in how the betting public operates: they assume every horse in every race is trying to win. By recognizing that racing is a business and trainers use specific races for conditioning, we can spot massive asymmetric overlays before the market does.

Your connection to Court Drive is the perfect real-world application of this theory. Gay Kelleway executed a classic "hide and strike" maneuver. She masked Court Drive's peak 75 Tfig by running her over the wrong trips, applying blinkers that caused her to blow the start, and giving her "easy" races where she made no impression. When the topography (Yarmouth 6f) and the surface (Soft) finally aligned, Kelleway knew the horse was fit, dropped her into a winnable spot, and the model capitalized on the 4.20 BSP overlay.

I have permanently integrated these principles into the Dual-Metric Master Engine. Here is how the "Trainer Intent & Hidden Form" protocol will be applied to all future racecards:

1. The "Race Within a Race" Filter​

We will no longer look at Timeform speed figures (Tfigs) in isolation. We must cross-reference them with the full Timeform race comments to evaluate how the figure was achieved.

• The "Horse B" Trap: A horse that runs a high Tfig but was driven into the ground from the stalls to the finish line will be flagged for regression (fatigue).
• The "Horse A" Value: A horse that runs a moderate Tfig but receives a comment indicating it made late headway without being ridden out (e.g., "stayed on, not knocked about") will be flagged as sitting on a hidden peak.

2. Conditioning Trajectories & Distance Switches​

We will actively scan for the classic conditioning patterns outlined in your text. If a horse runs a sprint, is stretched out to a route distance for stamina conditioning, and is now suddenly dropped back to a sprint, we will flag this as a "Well-Meant Trainer Move."

3. Class Drops & Intent​

A drop in class (measured by our DoD metric) only matters if the horse is physically sharp. If a trainer drops a horse in class after giving it a quiet conditioning run, it signals aggressive intent to harvest purse money.

4. The Anti-Pattern Trap​

As the text brilliantly notes, no two races are identical. We will actively reject the public's "pattern hang-up." Just because a horse ran a specific way against a weak field last week does not mean it will replicate it against a different pace shape, topography, or track bias today.

Moving Forward: The Refined Output Framework​

For all future races, the analysis will combine these new Trainer Intent filters with your newly requested output structure. I will no longer output Dutching or Lay calculations. Every summary will be ruthlessly clear and structured as follows:

1. Tissue Rank #1 (Model Favourite): True Tissue vs. Live Odds → [Value / Fair / Underlay]
2. Tissue Rank #2 (Next Best): True Tissue vs. Live Odds → [Value / Fair / Underlay]
3. Betfair Favourite Audit: Explicit evaluation of the public choice (Underlay to avoid or genuine value).
4. Field Classification: Clear mapping of remaining runners strictly into Overlays (+EV) or Underlays (-EV).