• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Trainer & Jockeys - Only Runner That Day - Is it significant?

ARAZI91

ARAZI91

Mare
Trainer & Jockeys Only Runner or Ride That Day.
Not really a system of sorts , more an angle but one you occasionally see dropped into some TV or Press pundits assessment of a race - the Trainer or Jockey's only ride or runner of the day. Logically you would think it would be more significant if attached to the larger scale operators who have multi-runners every day and all over the country. But is it.? Well as usual in horse racing , nothing is as clear cut - it seems it is significant for some but not so for others. Hopefully this research might try and shed some light on the names who contend and those who pretend. If it helps cash a few winners and avoid a few losers , all the better:)

By the way , no fancy pants data analysis 'R' type stuff here. I like to keep it nice and simple - look at the contrasts and compare. All data reported from HRB and then bunged into an excel spreadsheet for presentation with my very limited skills , so you real data scientists on here please be easy on me :)

So i'll start with the trainers.
Simple premise - compare all occasions where a trainer had one and only one runner on that racing day against his overall record.
Data is all UK runners only from 2003 up to yesterday and covers all codes.
I only used trainers who had at least 100 runners from 2016.
Now the messy bit - trying to explain an excel table:)
I sorted the table by largest difference in win percentage from "single runner days" to overall strike rate and this is the light blue column - "Win % Diff"
Yellow columns relate to overall trainers record and orange relate to trainers"single runner days"
The columns are in the following order - win % , Runs , BF P & L & BF ROI (within these there are two columns each - One for All Runs - Yellow and One for just the trainer having the one runner - Orange) - then a single % of runners column (this tells you how many times the trainer % wise has just the 1 runner on a day compared to all his runners)
After that is the Light Blue column "Win % Diff"
You will see a split after that (white blank column) and then another 3 columns - this is data only from 2016 to current and was just a check to compare strike rates and again the "Win % Diff" to see if results and trends were holding up or not.

There were 404 trainers on the list and the average difference in win % was a paltry 0.52% in favour of a trainer having only the one runner that day.This tells me that for the majority it don't make much difference if its the trainers only runner of the day. But from top to bottom there were some interesting discoveries at both extremes.

First off - the top of the table - Those trainers who have the largest difference in win %
ALL = trainers record overall (yellow)
1= trainers record with only having 1 runner that day.(orange)
(I have left off number of winners on the sheet , so just runners and win%)
UK Trainers - Most Significant - Single Runner Day v All Runners.PNG
Aiden O'Brien tops the table with his UK " only one runner today" hitting at around 30% from a small sample of only 63 runners - this compared to his overall strike rate of 16.58% was the largest jump. The end 3 columns show that since 2016 this has held up with a near identical difference in win %. You will also see that AOB only has a "single runner" in a day in the UK 4.56% of the time. The market also has these usually covered.

I thought the Hannon Jnr stats were quite significant - compared to his overall SR of just under 14% - when he has only the one runner in a day they win around 23% of the time from a sample of 167 (3% of runners) - BF ROI of 8% and the data holds up quite well from 2016 too.
And it is similar down the table - Bin Suroor overall jumps up 7.5 % with single runners and has a decent size sample (14% of all runners) - from 2016 there is a dip here but still positive. Paul Nicholl's was similar.
The big one for me was Charles Hills - overall his SR is 12.5% - but when he has only the one runner in a day this jumps up to around 18% - and the 28% ROI on BF looks really good against his overall ROI. The data from 2016 showed a slight increase in win% difference which was a positive.
Gosden , Pipe , Channon & Stoute all had positive difference's over 4% in SR - although some dipped since 2016.
Dascombe , Bell , C Appleby , Ryan , Meehan & Ed Dunlop's runners could also arguably be upgraded when you see it's their only runner of the day.
Beckett shows up well too and the data just from 2016 shows an increase to 23.5% - similar applies to Phillip Hobbs as well.

And onto the bottom of the table
UK Trainers - Bottom Table - Single Runner days.PNG

Some big scale operators on there like O'Meara , McCain Jnr , Michael Appleby and the data shows their single runners under-perform to different degrees compared to their usual standards.
Gordon Elliot with a smallish sample compared to his total runners has the largest drop in overall performance.

Ill post up the jockey table next and there are some big names again at both ends of the table.
 
Last edited:
Same set up on the sheet - same data periods etc

Jockeys - Most significant
UK Jockeys - Most Significant Single Ride.PNG
What struck me here with the jockey data was that the 2016 data check mostly held up and stayed in the realms of positive. Ryan Moore has a 50% strike rate in this period , but a very small sample.
Dettori with the largest jump in Win % when he only has the one ride of the day from 205 runners (just over 3% of rides) - market has them covered though by the looks of it.

Bottom of the table

UK Jockeys - Singles Rides - Bottom Table.PNG
Some decent jockeys on there - interesting to note that 2 of the better ones - James Doyle and Adam Kirby both turned their 2016 data around - Doyle by 13.29% in 2016 increasing his "Single mount" win % to 33% from an overall low of just under 11%.
Brian Hughes at the bottom there strangely for a jockey who since the turn of 2018 is riding at a 24% strike rate from over 140 odd runners and normally 13% to over 16% depending on what period of data you look at - yet overall the data shows when he has just the one mount the strike rate drops to around 7% overall from 479 rides.
 
Last edited:
ARAZI91 ARAZI91 Recently i have found myself quoting an old adage "Its not what we have but the way which we use it" it does seem to fit many aspects of what we backers attempt.? Re your above stats would you use them to identify a horse to back or to support the chance of one which you had already cased off form and ratings.?

How would you use the above if you had a positive for trainer but neg for rider,if both showed neg would this prevent you backing one already of interest.? I see members of this forum doing good work using HRB and similar yet invariably i find myself feeling back footed and am constantly seeking to improve my understanding and use of.

Perhaps this occurs because although i use RI and think its great i remain old school Re the numbers.Even when i find a stat which is telling me something i wish to hear,i still have a need to seek a "racing reason" to support it ,likewise an apparent negative to chance is there a valid reason or excuse which can be used to negate this.In both examples often no reason(s) can be gleaned but certainly useful when they are.

In your above jockey table how many have agents and what part have they played in the decision and outcomes.? I often have a rather morbid thought smart betting yards will be attempting to cover all bases ,will some trainers being aware that press and public are now increasingly "into" stats ,use there own overt ones to put us away and add points to the price.?....................I would :)

I hope you now know me well enough to realize that none of my above is intended as critique of what you have been good enough to share,but rather an alternative devils advocate view offered with good intention.I actually want to feel sold on the numbers and there best use, but currently remain often confused and sometimes suspicious.
 
Last edited:
mick said:
ARAZI91 ARAZI91 Recently i have found myself quoting an old adage "Its not what we have but the way which we use it" it does seem to fit many aspects of what we backers attempt.? Re your above stats would you use them to identify a horse to back or to support the chance of one which you had already cased off form and ratings.?

How would you use the above if you had a positive for trainer but neg for rider,if both showed neg would this prevent you backing one already of interest.? I see members of this forum doing good work using HRB and similar yet invariably i find myself feeling back footed and am constantly seeking to improve my understanding and use of.

Perhaps this occurs because although i use RI and think its great i remain old school Re the numbers.Even when i find a stat which is telling me something i wish to hear,i still have a need to seek a "racing reason" to support it ,likewise an apparent negative to chance is there a valid reason or excuse which can be used to negate this.In both examples often no reason(s) can be gleaned but certainly useful when they are.

In your above jockey table how many have agents and what part have they played in the decision and outcomes.? I often have a rather morbid thought smart betting yards will be attempting to cover all bases ,will some trainers being aware that press and public are now increasingly "into" stats ,use there own overt ones to put us away and add points to the price.?....................I would :)

I hope you now know me well enough to realize that none of my above is intended as critique of what you have been good enough to share,but rather an alternative devils advocate view offered with good intention.I actually want to feel sold on the numbers and there best use, but currently remain often confused and sometimes suspicious.
Click to expand...
mick mick - thanks for taking the time to read the thread and respond.

Never intended to confuse Mick so apologies.
First off - It's good for a punter to be suspicious and through some of your past postings i have gleaned some new lines of questioning , especially the trainers trying to throw us off these big shiny stats:) It makes sense , especially the gambling yards.
But i'm afraid i have no answers here Mick , i think your under the impression that i actually use this angle - No mate ,the above was intended as a research post only and has nothing to do with any methodology or criteria i use to select my mainly losing bets:) hence i started the post with the "TV / press pundits quote" - it is something i have came across many times , read it in books and heard that "so and so is sending one to Lingfield tonight and it is his only runner" or "Dettori's there for his only ride of the day" especially in the RP comments section and on both racing channels - so in essence a rather basic attempt to determine if it is significant or not. As i stated with the trainers - based on all the data - the average difference in win % was only 0.52 % in favour of a trainer's sole runner against all runners so really for the majority there is nothing in it - but i have found in the past that there is usually something to be gleaned in the extremes. And that is why i posted the top and bottom ends of the table maybe for forum members to discuss further and maybe glean an insight or two. So the above is just a stand alone attempt to prove if there is any worth in a racing myth if you like and drum up some discussion and not in any way an attempt to convince anybody that this is a method or system.
Would i use any of the above solely as a basis for a bet? - Never!
But having seen the data would i maybe look for example at Charles Hill's sole runners on a day differently? - maybe - actually quite a big maybe and hopefully with further input and discussion we could decide if there is any worth in this.
Like yourself Mick i look for "racing reasons" within quite simple data and you have probably seen some of the stuff i track , layoffs , headgear / equipment and trainer moves - the "racing reason" behind that kind of stuff is in the theme of "improvement" - trainers buy new stock to improve their lot and win races , trainers apply equipment to try and improve their stock and win races , trainers rest their stock for future gains down the line. From that i apply the same kind of approach i have applied to this , look at the extremes and take it from there. Strictly as a backer i look more at positives than negatives , and i don't really use negative stats to oppose horses or to go off them , preferring more traditional "form" reasons for that.
BTW I also have done similar research with another old adage / myth - the "Long Distance Traveller" and ill post that up soon in the hope that it drums up some discussion. Once again there are positives and negatives (there has to be!:)) in fact there are trainers who are extremely good , within this area but ill say right now - it is not something that i really use in my betting.....but i might (and others might too) through further discussion and ideas try and incorporate it.

Hope this answers you Mick:)
 
:) It certainly does and cheers for your comprehensive and clear response. :) As you say certainly a topic which lends its self to forum discussion and i hope this happens.
 
Interesting tonight , the above mentioned Charles Hills has his one and only runner at Chelmsford in the 8.30 - Dark Freedom.
Paul Nicholls was another mentioned above and runs Antartica De Thaix - his only runner of the day in the 4.05 at Huntingdon.

Drilling down a bit with Charles Hills Sole Runners
By Code
Charles Hills - Code.PNG
Does better on the All Weather
and then by AW Track
Hills - tracks.PNG
Good record with sole runners at Kempton and Woverhampton
Tonight's track Chelmsford not so good.

Paul Nicholls sole runners at Huntingdon actually very good albeit from a small sample. He has a stack of tracks he does well with this angle.
Nicholls.PNG
 
In US racing I used to use "trainer angles" to create bets. It's an area I like the idea of, but seldom have the patience to research.

I always preferred the 1st, 2nd or 3rd after a claim or with a new yard angle.

As to the tables posted, I'm not any kind of statistician, but with any set of numbers .. you will have outliers.

I wonder up to what point a number can be considered an outlier and at what point it would become statistically relevant?

I think your overall stat showing only a 0.52 percent difference in results says a lot here.

Having said all of that, you may have found the pot of gold, who knows?

If we don't look under all of the rocks .. we may never find the Holy Grail.

Interesting research, well done ARAZI91 ARAZI91
 
pete said:
In US racing I used to use "trainer angles" to create bets. It's an area I like the idea of, but seldom have the patience to research.

I always preferred the 1st, 2nd or 3rd after a claim or with a new yard angle.

As to the tables posted, I'm not any kind of statistician, but with any set of numbers .. you will have outliers.

I wonder up to what point a number can be considered an outlier and at what point it would become statistically relevant?

I think your overall stat showing only a 0.52 percent difference in results says a lot here.

Having said all of that, you may have found the pot of gold, who knows?

If we don't look under all of the rocks .. we may never find the Holy Grail.

Interesting research, well done ARAZI91 ARAZI91
Click to expand...
Cheers pete pete - i'm no statistician myself and i don't know about a "pot of gold" - most days i'm thankful for a pot of soup!:)
The idea to track "layoffs" came from your homeland and i use the same template as your claims - 1st run after , 2nd run after etc up to the 4th run at various layoff (days since) brackets - P Bowen attached - big improvers on the fourth run after a layoff - R4
Bowen Layoffs.PNG
 
Hi pete pete you may have already read it but ARAZI91 ARAZI91 put up a link to a great book about US Claiming races just before Christmas called " The Gasman Lights Up The Tote Board " by Gasper Moschera. Although it is aimed at American punters it's a great read and worth a look even if you don't bet on American racing.
 
The South Africans announce the only rides on tv.
I don't have any figures but I imagine you should look into the top jocks to see what happens when they have a one and only ride, not all of them put together
One time I remember they took AP by helicopter to another race course from where he was riding for the first of the afternoon's races and we were sure he was going to win and he did.

Other things about jocks to interrogate your database are the jockey doubles and also what happens after a jock has had a resounding failure on a favourite.
 
Last edited:
cosmicsports said:
The South Africans announce the only rides on tv.
I don't have any figures but I imagine you should look into the top jocks to see what happens when they have a one and only ride, not all of them put together
One time I remember they took AP by helicopter to another race course from where he was riding for the first of the afternoon's races and we were sure he was going to win and he did.

Other things about jocks to interrogate your database are the jockey doubles and also what happens after a jock has had a resounding failure on a favourite.
Click to expand...
cosmicsports cosmicsports - the excel screenshots above show the jockeys / trainer records individually with one and only ride
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top