|
Sectional times are seriously important
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
There is a strong correlation between
punting success and knowledge of sectional times.
At one end of the scale the average Saturday
punter doesn’t pay any attention at all to them when looking at the form.
Then you have the more serious form student
who looks at sectional times but probably not in great detail.
And finally you have the professionals whose
punting fortunes live and die by them.
One leading corporate bookmaker puts it this
way. “Times are a massive part of what I do because the numbers don’t lie.
If a horse looks to have run well to the naked eye but the sectionals are
poor then I'll be looking to lay the hell out of it next start. Good horses
have acceleration. I'm huge on sectional times and they form the basis of my
own ratings”. Punters are in a battle with their fellow punters just as much
as they are competing against bookmakers. So it would be unwise and most
likely unprofitable to allow others to be armed with better information than
yourself. And don’t be afraid of having to learn a new skill just because
understanding sectional times may look a little daunting at first. Because
once information becomes easily accessible and understood by the market the
profitable edge that can be gained from this analysis declines.
Ed Kennett, Senior Form Analyst at Champion
Picks, is a firm believer in the importance of analysing sectional times.
"We pay a lot of money for the most detailed
data available and it would be crazy to try and watch videos without proper
sectional times. You have to know which part of the field is being
advantaged because the way some races are run there are horses that have
next to no chance.” “I'm especially interested in horses that defied the
speed bias. For example a horse that ran fast closing sectionals off a hot
pace, particularly the last 200 and 400. I compare the overall and sectional
times to the standardised time to assess how are they performing on the day
relative to par. I look at the good times, make sure it’s not hand timed,
and then look in detail at the sectionals.”
“Media commentators often quote the last
600m in isolation but that figure by itself is misleading. A last 600 in
34.5 seconds may sound impressive, but you need to look at the early pace of
the race to determine just how good the run was. Some people get sucked into
following horses that stormed home from the back of the field, but that’s
not the main thing to look for when using sectionals.”
“Punters love the thrill of watching
backmarkers as they consider it more exciting than watching one lead all the
way. But horses that race back in the field need everything to go their way
and some can run incredible closing sectionals without ever winning. Horses
like Von Costa De Hero come to mind. Backmarkers are subject to the way the
race is run so really there is a lot that’s out of their control."
“When doing the video and sectional times
analysis I’m also looking for horses that are weak so I can consider betting
around them at their next start. For example a horse that has enjoyed an
easy time of it on a slow pace, but then finds very little in the straight.”
“Another thing to avoid is expecting a peak run to be reproduced next start.
If a horse has had a big spike in their performance either first up or
towards the end of their preparation, it’s a very hard thing to reproduce
next start.”
Most punters don't have the time nor
inclination to put in the work required to analyse sectional times in great
depth and that's fair enough for the $5 mug punter. But for those more
serious about their punting, it's nigh on impossible to win long-term
without utilising sectional time analysis in some form.
Good punting
David Duffield
Champion Picks
Three keys to punting success
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
There are many different
ways that long-term winning punters go about their business.
Some will have many bets
each week and be content with a small profit on turnover. Others bet big on
a smaller number of races. Then you have those who specialise in exotics or
lay betting.
And that's just to name a
few of the different types of punters. But no matter what your approach is,
there are three consistent factors that every successful punter applies:
(1) Only bet when you're
getting value.
If you don't have what you
consider to be a minimum price for your selection to be value than you are
betting blind. And the concept of value shouldn't be based on your gut
instinct or the opinion of TV or radio pundits.
Instead the minimum or
rated price must be the result of rigorous and objective form analysis. Too
many losing punters fall in love with a horse and back it regardless of
price. That horse may be a great bet at odds of $5.00, but at $3.00 it could
be well under it's true price. But how would you know unless you had quality
rated prices?
The concept of value comes
back to the percentage chance of that horse winning the race and you need to
be confident that you've done sufficient form study to make an accurate
assessment. If your analysis has identified the horse has a 40% chance of
winning the race, it's a good bet at odds of $3.00 or on the other hand is a
good lay at $2.00.
Having access to quality
rated prices and then the discipline to only bet when you're getting value
is a non-negotiable factor in long-term punting success.
(2) Make every effort to
get the best available odds
If you're only betting
with the TAB then you're costing yourself money almost every time you back a
winner. Today's punter has never had it better with the variety of best
tote, best fluctuation and Betfair options available. It's common sense to
say that trying to beat a market percentage of 105-110% has to be easier
than the 118% of the TAB's. But many losing punters are too lazy to have a
handful of betting accounts to make sure they're getting the best odds
available.
(3) Balance risk versus
reward in the way you manage your money
Many punters are long-term
losers not because they can’t pick a winner, but because they have a very
haphazard approach to staking. In percentage terms they bet too much of
their bank each race, have too many bets each day and then the size of their
bet is determined by whether they are winning or losing on the day.
Long-term winning punters
are business-like and methodical in their approach. They start each day with
a definite plan and won't waiver from it, regardless of whether they are
having the best or worst punting day of their life.
On the other hand almost
every mug punter 'wings it' without any real plan for what they are going to
do in the hustle and bustle of an afternoon's racing. Many follow one of two
paths which both lead to increasing the size of their wagers throughout the
day: (1) they find themselves in a losing position and start chasing to get
back square, or (2) they are in front and decide to go for the big win. Both
paths are a fast-track to disappointment, yet are repeated on a regular
basis by the same punters who struggle to make good decisions when in
punting mode.
I'd
like to be as certain of getting the quaddie tomorrow as I am in saying
this: if you only bet when you're getting value, make every effort to get
the best odds and manage your money well you will definitely be a more
successful punter.
Good punting
David Duffield
Champion Picks
10 things to avoid this Spring Carnival
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
Under-estimating Bart
The great man has swept
all before him this Spring and who would bet against him continuing that
great run? Viewed looks an excellent chance to win yet another cup for the
King.
Betting early on the
Cup
Hopefully you have already
avoided this because pretty much everything is against you when backing your
Cup fancy a long way out. Injuries, track conditions, form and the bookies
huge early market percentage just to name a few. How many Melbourne Cup
favourites have we already had this year?
Losing the remote
control
The farcical broadcast
rights agreement leaves you with no other option other than to keep the
remote control handy at all times. No-one in their right mind could sit
through a whole day of Channel 7's 'celebrity' interviews, advertorials and
soapie cross-promotion but when the actual race is run you have no other
option. So enjoy TVN for everything except the race itself.
Short-priced favourites
Almost every race over the
Spring Carnival has many chances so think twice before backing the hot
favourite.
Straight races
These are notorious for
hard-luck stories with many horses 'getting lost' down the straight.
Over indulging
Betting and alcohol aren't
really a winning combination so have a money management plan and stick to
it.
Going Cup crazy
Don't bet 5 times your
normal wager on the Cup just because it's the race that stops a nation. You
can still enjoy our great race with a normal sized bet.
Tote odds
Anyone betting solely with
the tote either has no understanding of percentages or has chosen to use
their spare time to help fund a wannabe monopoly.
Coat tuggers
If you've done the form
yourself or subscribed to a selection service don't let the 'coat tuggers'
persuade you to change your tip.
The get out stakes
Whether you're up for the
day, down or all-square it rarely ends well when you put all of your betting
bank down on the 'lucky last'.
Good luck to you during
the best week of the year!
Pitfalls of pre-post betting
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
This week's scratching of
Profound Beauty from the Melbourne Cup once again highlights the pitfalls of
betting early on the big Spring races.
Despite being perfectly sound and the first international runner paid up for
when second declarations closed this week, the mare's owners decided against
making the long trip. Punters who had taken the $12 about her have done
their money cold.
While this is obviously disappointing for her backers,
pre-post betting is a very risky business as your horse may:
Suffer an injury
Horses can suffer from any number of injuries or illnesses that prevent them
from even making it to the barriers on the big day. Betting months or even
weeks out from the big race is fraught with danger.
Not qualify
Many of the horses listed in the
pre-post markets are not even qualified for the race.
Not be aimed at the race
The horse you're looking to back in the Melbourne Cup may in fact have the
Cox Plate or
Caulfield Cup as it's primary Spring goal.
Travel problems
Like Profound Beauty, most of the overseas horses nominated will not travel
at all and those that do may struggle to acclimatise to local conditions.
And as a rule the hype on the European horses outweighs their ability to
adapt to our style of racing.
Unsuitable weather
The Melbourne Cup surface can be anywhere from a bog to quite firm so you
need to be very confident that your horse can handle all conditions.
Poor barrier draw
Are you happy betting without knowing whether your horse will be starting
from barrier 1 or barrier 24?
Poor odds
This is probably the biggest issue of all because taking
unders in any form of punting is a fast track to the poor
house. Look at TAB
Sportsbet's Melbourne Cup market this week and you will see it
is framed to 175%, yet on the day of the race you'll be able to shop around
and bet into a market as close to 100% as you'll ever find.
To give you an idea of how
heavily a 175% market is weighted in the bookies favour, it's the equivalent
of taking $1.14 each of two in a two-horse race. Or $1.70 for each runner
in a three-horse race.
So even if your fancy
makes it to the first Tuesday in November it may actually start at longer
odds on the day and you would have been better off waiting. All that risk
for a negative return!
By all means have a couple
of dollars if you already have a real fancy in the Cup, but save your real
betting for
raceday.
Regards
David
Duffield
Champion Picks
Nash Rawiller
under-rated by punters
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
My previous article
shortlisted David Payne, Joe Pride, Kevin Moses and John O’Shea as four of
the most profitable trainers to follow in metropolitan Sydney racing.
In applying a similar
methodology to analyse the Sydney riding ranks, just three jockeys passed
the test and are worth following from a punter’s perspective.
Nash Rawiller, Hugh Bowman
and Nathan Berry were the only hoops that made at least 5% profit on
turnover at level stakes in season 2008/9 and had at least 100 rides in the
metropolitan area.
So how does their
performance stack up over the longer-term? Let’s look at the numbers for the
last three seasons combined:
Rawiller 18% POT
Bowman -9%
Berry 6%
(Please note these profit
figures are based on tote prices only, so if you made the effort to find the
best available odds you could improve these substantially).
Nash Rawiller’s profit
figures are simply outstanding and they’re not the result of a couple of
long-shots getting up. In fact you would have made very good profits simply
backing his mounts when they’re in the market:
+8% when riding the
favourite
+23% on the 2nd
fave
+30% on the 3rd
fave
Based on those numbers
it’s worth taking a closer look Rawiller’s rides at Rosehill tomorrow:
Obama (Race 3)
Cortina Gal (Race 4)
Voice Coach (Race 7)
Snow Alert (Race 8)
On the other side of the
ledger, there were a number of jockeys that lost more than 30% on turnover
from 100+ metro rides last season. Some of the bigger names who were well
and truly overbet include Daniel Ganderton, Danny Nikolic, Jay Ford and Tye
Angland.
Good luck
David Duffield
Freedman vs. Hayes is a no contest
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
While the battle for the Victorian trainer’s
premiership went right down to the last event of the season, from a punter’s
perspective it really was a one-trainer race.
Punters over-rate and over-bet David Hayes
trained horses to such an extent that anyone following his stable would have
to be very selective to come out in front.
On the other hand Lee Freedman could be
considered the punters pal, particularly if you’re a favourite backer.
Let’s take a look at the stats for the
metropolitan season just gone:
Freedman had a 16% winning strike-rate
(compared to 10% for Hayes). Freedman horses lost 6% on turnover (25% loss
for Hayes). Freedman favourites won 25% on turnover (21% loss for Hayes).
These metro stats show that from a punter’s
perspective there really was no contest between the two big-name trainers.
Now if we expand our analysis to look at the
state-wide numbers across metropolitan, provincial and country racing the
same pattern emerges:
Freedman had a 20% winning strike-rate
(compared to 13% for Hayes) Freedman horses lost 7% on turnover (27% loss
for Hayes) Freedman favourites won 4% on turnover (5% loss for Hayes)
These numbers clearly show that Freedman
would easily defeat Hayes in the race for a punting premiership.
Next week we’ll take a look at all Victorian
trainers to find the best stables to follow.
Good luck
David Duffield
Horses for courses – Doomben
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
Today we’re going to look at the stats for
Doomben racecourse in Brisbane to see how well the form holds up at this
track.
Here is the record of the first four horses
in the market (based on NSW TAB prices) from more than 1100 races held at
Doomben from 2006 to date: Favourite -12% Profit on Turnover 2nd Fave -16%
POT 3rd Fave -12% POT 4th Fave -16% POT
So -14% overall for the first four
favourites which is basically in line with the -13% across all tracks during
this time.
Experience at the track does not appear to
be a significant factor. The statistics show that horses who hadn’t
previously raced at Doomben lost 12% on turnover, whereas horses that had
course experience lost 16%.
That makes Doomben the first track we have
looked at in this series where course experience was not undervalued by
punters. The ‘experience factor’ was worth an average of 8% on turnover at
Rosehill, Moonee Valley and Sandown Lakeside combined.
The Doomben track has a circumference of
1,715 metres and a 350 metre straight. The relatively tight turns make it
difficult to race wide and win and this is reflected in the barrier stats.
Simply backing barrier 1 makes a small level stakes profit (1% on turnover)
and betting barrier 2 performs 7% better than the overall average.
We can’t draw too many conclusions from the
results for the different track conditions: Good -13% Dead -13% Slow -22%
Heavy -9%
The best performing jockeys at Doomben
include Coome, Holder, L Cassidy, Morris and Palmer.
The jockeys showing the worst profitability
were Patillo, Taylor, Byrne, Wharton, Rolls, Radecker, McMahon, Galloway and
Seamer.
The best performing Doomben trainers include
Guy, Baldwin and Nolan.
The trainers whose horses are generally
overbet and under the odds at Doomben are Heinrich, Ryan, Morrissey,
Wallace, Hawkes, Webb, Page and Duff.
Course experience at Doomben doesn’t appear
to be a significant factor so this is one track that won’t be appearing on
our ‘horses for courses’ list. .
Good luck
David Duffield
Horses for courses – Sandown
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
In the third installment of our 'horses for
courses' series we're going to look at the stats for Sandown Lakeside (aka
Betfair Park) in Melbourne.
The Lakeside track has a circumference of
1,857 metres and the straight of 407 metres generally means that all horses
get their chance.
So how ‘true’ is the form at this track and
what is the record of those horses that are in the market? Here are the
stats (based on NSW TAB prices) for the 500+ races from 2006 to date:
Favourite 1% Profit on Turnover 2nd Fave -18% POT 3rd Fave -23% POT 4th Fave
-20% POT
So -15% overall for the first four
favourites which is marginally worse than the -13% across all tracks during
this time, but not so great a differential as to warrant a definitive
conclusion.
The statistics show that track experience at
Sandown Lakeside is a small advantage. Horses that haven’t started at the
track previously lost 16% on turnover, whereas those that had already raced
there lost 12%.
The experience of at least one start at the
track has been an advantage for each of the three courses we have looked at
so far.
At Moonee Valley there was a 12% POT
improvement for horses that had course experience and at Rosehill it was 9%.
Sandown Lakeside's 'experience factor' appears to be worth around 4% on
turnover and it will be interesting to see if this trend continues
throughout this series.
Following are the results for the different
track conditions: Good -15% Dead -20% Slow -16% Heavy -4%
Nothing too definitive there because with
just 66 races on heavy tracks it's a very small sample size.
There were no major standout stats in terms
of distances, other than the 1400 and 1500 were a combined -24% POT.
Barriers are of little importance here as
there is normally a good run to the first turn and horses can come from back
in the field. In fact like many other tracks, punters over-rate the
importance of inside barriers. At Lakeside barrier positions 1-8 lose 18% on
turnover, whereas barriers 9 and above lose just 1%.
The best performing jockeys at Lakeside
include four well-known names: Brad Rawller, Craig Newitt, Luke Nolen and
Steven King.
However some prominent jockeys also feature
on the worst performing list: Corey Brown, Chris Symons, Craig Williams,
Danny Brereton, Damien Oliver, Dean Holland, Greg Childs and Peter Mertens.
The best performing Lakeside trainers
include Lee Freedman, Mike Moroney, Mick Price, Peter Moody, Robbie Laing
and Robert Smerdon.
The trainers whose horses are generally
overbet and under the odds at Lakeside are Brian Mayfield-Smith, David
Hayes, Danny O'Brien, John Hakes, Mick Kent and Robbie Griffiths.
Although the importance of experience at
Sandown Lakeside is not as pronounced as at Moonee Valley or Rosehill, we
can safely add this track to our 'horses for courses' list.
Good luck
David Duffield
Horses for courses – Rosehill
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
My last article showed quite clearly that
Moonee Valley is a ‘horses for courses’ track and today I’m going to look at
Rosehill and find out whether the same principle applies there.
The home of the Golden Slipper has a track
circumference of 2,048 metres and the 408 metre straight generally means
that all horses get their chance wherever they are in the run.
So how ‘true’ is the form there and what is
the record of those horses that are in the market? Here are the Rosehill
stats (based on NSW TAB prices) for the 700+ races from 2006 to date:
Favourite -7% Profit on Turnover 2nd Fave -14% POT 3rd Fave -15% POT 4th
Fave +3% POT
So -8% overall which is better than the -13%
recorded across all tracks Australia-wide during this same time frame. While
the performance of the 4th favourite stands out in the results above, this
is likely to be a statistical anomaly because the 5th fave lost 24% on
turnover and the 6th fave lost 13%.
The statistics show that track experience at
Rosehill is definitely an advantage. Horses that haven’t started at the
track previously lost 12% on turnover, whereas those that had already raced
at Rosehill lost just 3%. Remember these figures are based only on NSW TAB
dividends so using Best Tote or Betfair could put you into a profit-making
position quite quickly.
The results for the different track
conditions don't reveal any definitive pattern: Good -8% Dead -9% Slow +2%
Heavy -19% (Only 91 races were held on a heavy track so I won’t draw too
much of a conclusion on such a small number). One other stat did stand out
though and that is simply backing the favourite at Rosehill on a good track
produced a 37% winning strike-rate for 5% profit on turnover. That’s a
pretty solid record from more than 400 qualifying races.
There were no major differentials for the
various Rosehill distances other than backing the first four in the market
over the Rosehill 1100 made a small profit. But again it's important not to
draw absolute conclusions from relatively small sample sizes.
The best performing jockeys at Rosehill
wouldn’t surprise too many people: Blake Shinn, Darren Beadman, Glen Boss,
Glyn Schofield, Hugh Bowman, Jeff Lloyd and Tim Clark.
However the names on the worst performing
Rosehill jockeys might: Corey Brown, Danny Beasley, Danny Nikolic, Jimmy
Cassidy and Rod Quinn.
The best performing Rosehill trainers
include Chris Waller, David Payne, Bart Cummings, John O'shea and Joe Pride.
The trainers whose horses are generally
overbet and under the odds at Rosehill are Guy Walter, Gerald Ryan, John
Hawkes, Kevin Moses and Peter Snowden
Overall I think it's fair to say that just
like Moonee Valley, the 'horses for courses' approach well and truly applies
to Rosehill as well.
Good luck
David Duffield
Horses for courses – Moonee Valley
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
In the next stage of the Fact or Fiction
series I'm going to look at the statistics for individual tracks and see if
we can find any pointers for the best and worst places to punt.
First up let's take a look at the Moonee
Valley track in Melbourne. The Valley's circumference of 1,805 metres and
very small straight of 173 metres means horses must be quite close to the
lead at the turn to have a winning chance.
Here are the stats (based on NSW TAB prices)
for the 450-odd races at Moonee Valley from 2006 to date: Favourite +2%
Profit on Turnover 2nd Fave -17% POT 3rd Fave -11% POT 4th Fave -27% POT
Firstly I must stress that 450 races isn't a huge sample size, so I wouldn't
be drawing definite conclusions from these stats without further
quantitative and qualitative analysis. Having said that, the cumulative
result of -13% above is right in line with expectations. You may remember
from an earlier article in this series that betting on the first four horses
in the market (across all tracks) lost 13% on turnover in the years
2006-2008. However the performance of favourites at Moonee Valley over the
last 3 years may surprise a few, with a small level stakes profit and 34%
winning strike-rate.
The StrathAyr surface and unique track
layout has led to Moonee Valley developing a reputation as a course for
track specialists, but do the stats back this up? The answer is yes they
definitely do, with the record of the 1000 or so first starters at the track
a woeful -19% POT. Compare this to the -7% POT for those horses who have had
at least one start at the Valley and you'll appreciate that course
experience can be a big advantage.
The results for the different track
conditions don't reveal any definitive pattern: Good -13% Dead -19% Slow -6%
Heavy -11%
The two worst performing distances were the
1000m (-19%) and the 1500 (-47%) but again it's important not to draw
absolute conclusions from relatively small samples.
The best performing jockeys at Moonee Valley
reads like a who's who of hoops: Damien Oliver, Michael Rodd, Brad Rawiller,
Nash Rawiller, Greg Childs, Luke Nolen and Nicholas Hall were the standouts.
The better performing trainers include Mick
Kavanagh, Peter Moody and Leon Corstens. Two trainers who look to be worth
avoiding at the Valley are Lee Freedman at -21% from 154 runners and faring
even worse is David Hayes whose 183 runners returned an embarrassing -43%
POT.
Overall I think it's fair to say that the
'horses for courses' approach well and truly applies to Moonee Valley.
Good luck
David Duffield
Wet track form
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
My previous article went through the statistics
from all TAB races in 2005 to 2008 and these showed that punting on wet
tracks is not better or worse than on dry tracks. In a nutshell, the market
gets it right just as often across all track conditions.
I also mentioned that you still need to do
sufficient form analysis to make sure the horse you’re considering betting
on can handle the wet, so today I’ll discuss in more detail what this should
involve. There isn’t a single statistic or form factor that will
categorically tell you that a horse can handle the heavy, but there are some
things you should definitely consider.
Wet track form
While a previous wet track win is a good guide,
it isn’t the be-all and end-all. For example while 1 from 1 on the heavy may
give you confidence, sometimes a horse may have won the race on pure ability
and can not really handle a wet track. When stepped up in grade, this type
of horse can flounder in heavy going.
On the other hand you might see that a horse
has had two heavy runs, been unplaced both times and you assume it can’t
handle rain-affected ground. But on further inspection you may find that
those two unplaced runs were in events where the horse was outgraded and
actually performed right up to it’s ability.
And don’t assume that just because a horse has
performed well on a slow track that it will be able to handle the heavy as
this isn’t always the case.
Fitness
Fitness is also a vital ingredient. Unfit
horses don’t win many races on any surface, but the fitness factor is
especially important when the track is wet.
Video analysis
If you have the time and expertise, video
analysis can also help as the trained eye can pick up on a horse’s action
and other characteristics to ascertain whether it is handling the conditions
OK.
Distance
Some horses can handle the wet but only over a
certain distance range. For example a wet 1200 might be OK but if the horse
is racing today over a mile that may well be a different story.
Barriers
Wide barriers can actually be an advantage as
the going can be better away from the fence. And this can be even more
important later in the day when the jockeys tend to scout wide in search of
better going.
Jockey
The skill of the jockey plays an important part
in any race, and never moreso than on heavy going. Apprentice, inexperienced
or over-rated jockeys are certainly worth avoiding.
On-pace
You should always be looking for on-pace
runners and this trait is just as important in heavy going as it can be
especially hard to make up ground.
Breeding
It’s also worth considering the horse’s
breeding as some stallions have an excellent history of producing mudlarks.
There are a number of websites where you can research the best wet track
sires.
Rain-affected tracks require a unique approach,
but if you combine detailed form analysis with the discipline to be
selective it is still possible to do well.
Good luck
David Duffield
Should wet tracks be avoided?
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
Fact or Fiction: Avoid betting on wet tracks
as they can be unpredictable and throw up many longshot results.
Many punters shy away from rain-affected
tracks but is this perception backed up by the facts?
We will start by looking at the performance
of all favourites across all track conditions in 2008 (using NSW TAB
prices):
Good = -6% Profit on Turnover
Dead = -11% POT
Slow = -16% POT
Heavy = -9% POT
You can clearly see that favourites performed best on Good tracks for the
15,000 races last year. But the second best performing track condition was
Heavy.
So does this hold true for second favourites
as well? The answer is no and while there isn't a huge disparity the results
are in fact inverted:
Good = -14% POT
Dead = -13% POT
Slow = -12% POT
Heavy = -11% POT
And the numbers for horses who are ranked
third by the market?
Good = -14% POT
Dead = -7% POT
Slow = -1% POT
Heavy = -18% POT
An interesting set of numbers, with the two extremes (dry and wet)
performing the worst.
Let's see the results for horses who are
ranked fourth by the market:
Good = -16% POT
Dead = -21% POT
Slow = -22% POT
Heavy = -2% POT
By far the best performing track condition here is the Heavy, but the other
extreme (Good tracks) was the second best.
So let's combine all of the results above
and look at the overall performance of the first 4 horses in the market for
2008:
Good = -12% POT
Dead = -13% POT
Slow = -12% POT
Heavy = -10% POT
Based on those numbers you simply can't
sustain the argument that avoiding betting on wet tracks is the way to go.
And while one year and 15,000 races is a reasonable sample size, let's
expand it to all of 2006-2008:
Good = -12% POT
Dead = -12% POT
Slow = -12% POT
Heavy = -14% POT
Once again you'd be hard pressed to argue the case for avoiding wet tracks.
Assuming you do sufficient form analysis to
make sure the horse can handle today's track conditions, then you will be no
better nor worse off betting on rain-affected ground.
Good punting
David Duffield
Champion Picks
Champion Picks.com.au
Today David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
continues his discussion regarding the world of
sports arbitrage trading with Shane of www.SportsArbitrageGuide.com and
www.SureBetBookies.com
25th April, 2009
DD: What kind of
percentage return can a reasonably successful arb trader achieve on a
monthly basis?
SG: The most important question of all, and
one I have really watched closely since I started to involve myself in this
industry. I have found time and time again, that the percentage return from
month to month, is on average around 10% of your total bankroll.
There are good months, and there are bad
months. Some people are better than others and can consistently make more,
while other people are worse and consistently make less. It is possible to
make significantly more than 10% when claiming sign up bonuses on new
accounts, but this is usually done when you are new and learning, so is
often counter balanced with a higher chance of making a mistake and losing
money. However some people repeatedly seek out new friends and relatives who
they can ‘become’ in order to continually feed on this profitable venture –
so that activity can probably return more than 10% each month.
The final limitation on your income when
trading is the upper bankroll limit. As you start to trade with a larger
bankroll, you will eventually find yourself struggling to keep all of your
funds liquid, more often finding most of it sitting still in accounts unable
to be placed into arbs. The upper limit volume varies depending on personal
arbitrage styles (using just alert services vs finding your own vs being
very good at finding your own…), but one number that I have heard recently
as an upper limit of active trading volume was 200,000 EUR. It is also
likely that even at that volume, you would probably only be making 8-9% per
month. (ie, ‘only’ 16,000 EUR tax free profit each month.)
DD: Do you ever place arbs on horse racing?
SG: I have never, but I have heard it is
possible. Unfortunately I have never researched it well, but some pointers
for anyone considering it are to firstly check for conflicting bookmaker
rules. I recall reading somewhere that different bookmakers have different
ways of dealing with horse withdrawals. Secondly, I have also read that
bookmakers are quicker to limit people arbing on horses than they are to
limit people arbing on sports… but that is just what I have heard.
DD: What payment systems/companies do you
use? Do you operate all of your accounts in Aussie dollars and if so do you
worry about currency fluctuations?
SG: Moneybookers and/or Neteller usually.
Most bookmakers accept both these days, have immediate deposits, and allow
free transactions with them. If you can get a credit card which allows you
to make free deposits to a bookmaker than that can be quite useful too.
Currencies can be very tricky. I have
personally always chosen to convert my trading funds into a more widely
accepted currency (USD, GBP or EUR) and kept all of my bookmaker accounts in
that one currency. These 3 currencies are the most widely accepted
currencies across all of the bookmakers, and I like to keep all of my
bookmaker accounts in the same currency to avoid needing to calculate
currency conversion rates while placing trades (it is hard enough getting an
arb on quickly and accurately without also worrying that you have
accidentally converted in the wrong direction!). If I tried to trade in just
AUD then I would be limited to a few of the largest bookmakers, and then
just the Australian bookmakers – only a fraction of the number of possible
bookmakers.
The obvious risk when going with this method
is that you convert all of your X thousand dollars into GBP and then GBP
starts to lose value (or the AUD gains value). You may then find your
arbitrage profits completely lost to currency depreciation. Such an event is
an extreme case, but with ‘global economic crisis 09’, anything is possible.
It is also possible that the AUD will crash in relation to the GBP and you
double your value…so maybe it isn’t worth worrying about…?
You can always hedge your currency on the
Forex market too if you were really concerned. Otherwise, just trade in your
native currency, and only hold random accounts in foreign currencies where
you must.
A good discussion had been going on this
topic recently on ArbForum.
DD: How do you track the different sports
rules of different bookmakers to make sure you don't get caught out by a
retirement, or pitcher change, or other match-ending situation?
That was one of the reasons I created Sure
Bet Bookies actually, to create an easy to use references for tracking such
concerns. There are a few rule mismatches which are quite common, and these
are pretty easy to follow. Primarily you have tennis retirement rules,
baseball pitcher rules, and NHL Overtime rules. There are a few reliable
varieties on each of these rules across all of the bookmakers, and SBB has
attempted to record them all. When registering at a sportsbook for the first
time though, I will always double check their rule page and make sure it
hasn’t changed recently, and then record it on my own spreadsheet. Once you
know what the rules are for each of those sports, you just make sure not to
mismatch them when placing arbs…
DD: Have you had many bookmakers limit or
close your bets?
SG: Yes. Limits are something you have to
expect. Some bookmakers are great, and will never limit you (Pinnacle is the
best example of this), but then you have the other end of the spectrum where
they will limit you within 5-10 bets (Bwin and Bet365 are my two favourite
examples of this end of the spectrum). Most books though will take longer
than that, but will eventually decide that you have won enough of them or
something…it seems quite random actually. Some people will be limited to $5
bets within a month, while other arbers will have huge limits for several
years…
You don’t usually have books completely
close down your betting account though. They usually just lower your limit
to a volume so small as to leave no doubt in your mind that you are not
wanted. Bwin limited one of my accounts to 0.50 EUR after three bets once.
Not much you can do with 50c bets in the arbitrage game…
It isn’t worth stressing over bookmakers
limiting your accounts though. It is going to happen no matter what, you
just have to accept it, and move on to the next bookmaker. There will always
be betting exchanges and a few bookmakers who will always accept your
business. Those core books will always be there to support your arbs as you
slowly work your way through the other 500+ sportsbooks out there.
DD: Thanks very much for your time.
Today David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
discusses the world of sports
arbitrage trading with Shane of www.SportsArbitrageGuide.com and
www.SureBetBookies.com
17th April, 2009
Fact or Fiction: It’s possible to make a
guaranteed profit regardless of who wins the game or race.
This is a fact and the term 'arbitrage'
refers to taking the best odds from two or more bookmakers to guarantee a
small percentage profit.
DD: Tell us a bit about your background and
you became involved in arbitrage trading?
SG: I became interested in Arbitrage at the
beginning of 2006 when a friend introduced me to the concept. I had just
finished my uni degree and had some free time, so decided to do some
research – the idea seemed too good to be true, so I wanted to actually
understand it properly. What I discovered while trying to do this was that
the only information I could find was provided by people trying to sell you
something, or small articles scattered around the net.
I also had a lot of trouble finding
information on all of the bookmakers that I needed to use – their betting
limits, their betting rules, what currencies they accepted and minor details
like that which mean a lot when trying to arb between 10, 20 or 30 books at
one time.
After doing this for a while, I did manage
to piece together most of the facts about arbitrage (different to the ‘Sales
pitch’ I got on most sites), and decided that although it wouldn’t make me a
millionaire over the next few years (as some sites wanted you to think), it
could actually make an ongoing profit in return for a bit of work.
After a couple of months of researching the
topic and collecting all of this data, I realised that other people could
probably use the information that I had. So I ended up making a website.
After 3 years of ongoing development, it is finally at a stage where it is
virtually ‘complete’. At Sure Bet Bookies you have a database full of
bookmaker information pertinent to arbitrage trading, and at Sports
Arbitrage Guide you have a comprehensive step by step explanation of
everything about arbitrage trading. I try my best to keep both sites
completely objective, and provide only valuable information for people to
use.
So since I first started investigating the
subject of arbitrage I have been heavily involved in the arbitrage
community. I tend to be in contact with a few of the alert service
operators, friends with a few of the big time arb traders, and generally in
regular contact with just about anyone that has anything to do with
arbitrage trading. Whenever anything of note happens, it will be posted into
the SAG Blog before too long.
DD: Can you do well just by using arb alert
services or do you need to find your own? And are most arbs available for
just a few minutes?
SG: You can do well by just using an alert
service. I have never actively found my own arbs, and I know of others who
take this same passive approach to arbing and seem to be doing fairly well
for themselves as well. However, I also know of others who claim that they
only get less than half of their arbs from alert services, and the majority
of their profits come from manually found arbs. So maybe searching out your
own arbs is worth it. It really depends on how you want to go about it – as
usual; more work and effort will yield greater profit.
It is probably true to say that most arbs
only last a few minutes…but it is such a chaotic marketplace, that it is
hard to really put a number to how long arbs last. The majority of arbs are
created because one or more bookmakers are just a little slow moving their
odds, and so as soon as a few arbers find the arb and start placing large
bets on that high set of odds, the bookmaker will usually bring it back down
pretty quickly. I guess this will usually take ‘a few minutes’.
From a more practical perspective though,
all that matters is that when you find an arb (either manually or through
alert software), you really want to place the bets on that arb as soon as
you can. You never can tell whether it is going to last another 5 seconds, 5
minutes or 5 hours. Unless you were watching the odds before the arb was
made, you don’t know whether it has already sat there for 5 minutes or 5
hours…
DD: What is the minimum amount of bookmaker
accounts you'd need?
SG: To make a full time income out of
arbitrage, I would expect a minimum of 10 books, with an average of about 20
books. You will go through many more books than that, but at any one time,
you will probably be using about 20.
If you don’t have enough capital to make a
full time income from arbing (you’re looking at about $50,000 AUD as an
entry level bankroll in order to make a full time income), then you might
use less books. Maybe as few as 6, with 10-15 as an average number to keep
funded (depending on exactly how much capital you have liquid). I don’t
think I would ever try to use less than 6 books though – your supply of arbs
would be too thin.
DD: Do you specialise in particular sports?
SG: Only if you want to reduce your
potential profits. Arbitrage isn’t about the sport – it is about the
numbers. If you can guarantee a return of more than 100% of your investment,
then you do it. The only way that the sport comes in to it, is that some
sports have non-guaranteed outcomes, and you need to know about that. You
must know that your bets cover every possible outcome, otherwise you simply
aren’t arbing – you are gambling (and probably gambling badly).
DD: What kind of percentage return can a
reasonably successful arb trader achieve on a monthly basis?
SG: The most important question of all, and
one I have really watched closely since I started to involve myself in this
industry. I have found time and time again, that the percentage return from
month to month, is on average around 10% of your total bankroll.
The second installment of this interview
will run next week.
Improving your profits
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
3rd April, 2009
Fact or fiction: The easiest way to improve your punting profits is to back
more winners.
Most punters focus on their winning strike-rate when questioning their
punting performance. But did you know that getting 20% better odds can
double your profits?
Finding value is the most important ingredient in being a long term winner.
That value may be obtained by betting only when you can get an overlay,
which basically means getting a price that is greater than the horse's true
chance of winning the race. An example of this is getting $2.10 or more
about a horse that has a 50%+ probability of winning.
Another form of value betting is putting in as much work as possible to
secure the best available price. To do this online you need a number of
different bookmaker accounts, or to do it in person you need to go to the
track and chase down the best odds between bookmakers and the tote.
To prove our assertion that 20% better odds can double your profits, we will
use the real-life example of a punter who was content to just put his bets
on the tote. The punter had six $50 win bets for the day and had two winners
from those six bets, getting $4.90 for Acey Ducey and $2.80 for Forensics.
Overall he won $85 for the day and was fairly happy with himself, but a
little extra effort could have doubled his profit.
He could easily have backed Acey Ducey at $6 and Forensics at $3.60 with the
bookies. If he’d done this the punter would have won $180 for the day, which
is more than double the profit he achieved by betting tote only. His profit
on turnover improved from 28% to 60% just by taking the time to get the best
available odds. This sort of scenario is repeated almost every race day.
Punters have never had it better. There are myriad online betting options
and anyone who is serious about winning simply must make every effort to get
the best available odds from the bookies, totes and Betfair. You should also
use a live odds comparison website such as Dynamic Race Odds to see all of
the prices on one screen.
While it’s important to put the work into analyzing your winning
strike-rate, I’d argue that most punters could get instant improvement by
securing the best available price. And the effort is well worth while when
you consider that the winners you back will mean extra money in your pocket.
Good punting
David Duffield
Champion Picks
Champion Picks.com.au
The pitfalls of progressive staking
By David Duffield of
Champion Picks.com.au
Fact or fiction: A
progressive staking plan can turn a small level stakes loss into a healthy
profit.
The term "progressive" sounds fairly professional. But if they were called
by the more appropriate term of "aggressive loss chasing plans" then they
wouldn’t sound quite so tempting.
Progressive staking plans involve increasing your bet size following a loser
or series of losers. This approach may seem OK on paper and may work in the
short term, but at some stage you are absolutely certain to wipe out your
betting bank. Most punters already bet too much of their bank on each bet
and this problem is simply exacerbated by progressive betting.
Remember the old probability question – if you have tossed 20 straight heads
what is the chance of the next toss also being a head? It’s 50% of course,
no more and no less, so increasing your bets following a losing streak
doesn’t make any mathematical sense. Previous unrelated results (good or
bad) have no material effect on the next result, yet you are increasing your
bet size and risk. Betting against established mathematics and probability
is a recipe for financial ruin
It's very important to remember the key role
that strike-rate plays over any reasonable length of time.
Say for example you have around 40 bets a
week and achieve a 30% winning strike-rate.
98% of the time you will have between 6 and
18 winners for your 40 bets that week. In 68% of the weeks you will have
between 9 and 15 winners.
But it’s also a cold hard mathematical fact
that at some stage throughout the year you are 98% likely to encounter a
losing streak of 14 or more.
In fact you can expect 4 such losing streaks
of 14 over a 12 month period.
And you're an even money chance (50%) of
having a losing streak of 19.
What kind of progressive plan can cope with
those kinds of losing runs?
My advice to the vast majority of punters is
to research money management in detail, eliminate progressive plans and
before making a decision you should carefully consider:
(1) Winning percentage – based on actual
long-term records, not what you’d like to achieve in the future.
(2) Losing streak – what is your longest run
of outs or worst drawdown? When determining the size of your bank, consider
doubling the worst run yet experienced.
(3) Psychology – are you an aggressive
risk-taker, or more conservative and risk-averse?
(4) Google the term "gambler's ruin".
After carefully considering the above
factors and choosing a suitable money management plan, you should then
‘paper-trade’ before going live with your hard-earned money.
Many punters believe that
a progressive staking plan is the magic ingredient to be successful. They
are partially right because good money management principles are essential.
But to expect a progressive plan to be the secret to punting riches is very
naive and mathematically flawed. Promoters play on this naiveté to tout
expensive loss-chasing plans but if your system/method/tipster can't make a
level stakes profit you will eventually go broke.
Good luck
David Duffield
Champion Picks.com.au
The Newmarket..In a Breeze
By Ed Kennett of
Champion Picks.com.au
This year's Newmarket Handicap poses many
questions for punters.
How good are this year's crop of 3 year-olds?
Or will some of the less fancied older specialists salute? Will the Sydney
horses handle the straight six?
History has shown that the Newmarket is a race
won by high quality equine stars. While 3 year-olds are certainly
competitive, they do need to be a bit special to win. Let’s have a look at
the results for the past 5 years:
2008 Weekend Hussler
2007 Miss Andretti
2006 Takeover Target
2005 Alinghi
2004 Exceed And Excel
2003 Belle Du Jour
Certainly the current crop of 3 year-olds are
some of the best we have seen for a number of years.
The wind direction however may have a greater
significance on the result than most pundits have considered. Should it blow
from the north the track plays favour to the outside and we will see the
majority of runners head to the grandstand side. That in itself will not
only give some advantage to those drawn wide but also greatly assists the
Sydney horses who are used to coming out of the barriers and heading right.
The last time that happened was in the Group 1
Coolmore Stud Stakes back in November when Waterhouse's Northern Meteor was
too good for the O'Shea trained Fist Of Fury who burst from the pack late
and came of age. Admittedly this was a small field of 7 runners so the
advantage of barriers was negligible. Pace to get to the fence was perhaps
the real advantage and Northern Meteor
certainly did that with ease.
Those drawn wide with early speed are Red
Element, Time Thief, Grand Duels, Northern Meteor and Swiss Ace who will all
be looking for the paint on the grandstand side.
So blow wind blow (from the north please).
Selections
1.Northern Meteor
2.Red Element
3.Grand Duels
Good luck
Ed Kennett
Champion Picks.com.au
|
GO BACK TO
