Category: Post Mortem

Before I start, a disclaimer: I wasn’t on this one at all and it was only when I did the post-mortem for this race that something stood out concerning the winning horse. So, see this post as a form of discussion on that race and how the winner could have been spotted.

First, here’s the summary sheet displaying the race with some notes added.

What follows is clearly going to be a variant of the Blindingly Obvious selection.

First of all, this is very obviously a tight handicap. There’s less than eight pounds between the top rated and the bottom rated. In a race like this anything can surely win and there’s value to be had somewhere.

Secondly look at the differential figures for the horses and the bottom rated and the one of the horses with positives for the five year and the last race differentials is bottom rated Bahkit.

Not only does this horse have positive differentials for these two time intervals its differentials are the best in the field. The only negative is that it didn’t run for a year but in this day and age with advanced training techniques this isn’t necessarily an issue and, besides, those who think that it is an issue will only help to push the price out further.

So, with a moment or two of looking at the race we’ve found ourselves an interesting horse which went on to win.

In hindsight, this was a Blindingly Obvious horse and with a little more analysis of the race it should have been spotted.

This is something which was pointed out to me well after the event and is worth a post-mortem. This is the 4.45 at Newbury yesterday.
It was what could be described as a dreadful little maiden with little fear of contradiction. Ten horses were declared and only a handful had ever been on a racecourse before and only two, Magellan and Tango Fire, had ever raced on the flat previously: the same race type as this race.
Normally in years gone by I would look at the race to see if anything with a decent Koulds Score was running.

Koulds Scores, for those who are unaware, is a scoring system which looks at the prodigeny of the horses’ sires and dams and to compare how each group of offspring compare over going, distance, race-type, race class, race type and age.
A score is given to each horse in the race according to the rules of the scoring system (which are explained here) and I have found that in the past that going on the Sire/Dam data is about the only worthwhile angle to look at these races.
In this race the horse with the best Koulds Score is Duke Of Bronte (the horses are sorted in Koulds Dam order) and with a score of 11 is worth looking at. In such races I would normally have looked at horses with a score of ten or higher but, for one reason or another, the start of the flat season and the maidens have caught me out this year. Anyway, with the Koulds Score being clear by a good five points from the next horses I would have been interested in Duke of Bronte.
I have no idea of what the price was like on the exchanges but Duke Of Bronte won by two lengths, running well in the last hundred yards, to win at 100/1.
When one has a race with little or no form then cast an eye over the Koulds Scores, sometimes one can find something pop out.
*
Update: The Befair SP for Duke of Bronte was 880.

As ever a post mortem on a result is worth having because something may come of it. And this is what this new blog category is about; it’s looking at reasons that perhaps explain why an unfavoured horse won.
Perhaps there may be something that could be taken from a post mortem, perhaps there isn’t. But, all the same it’s often interesting to look at a good priced winner (or a very low priced loser) and seeing if one could see if there is anything to look at in the future in case there’s a pattern.
Here’s one to start off with.
In the 5.10 Pontefrace Rockwood won at 40/1 (available at 125s on the exchanges) and looking through the ratings we can see the following on the Trainer Calendar.

Rockwood is near the foot of the ratings but we can see that the trainer, Karen McLintock, has an overall training history (over the last five years) of 46 winners from 360 runners, a strike rate of around 12%. These figures result a loss of £80 if £1 were staked on each runner. Such as loss isn’t uncommon and, indeed, its a rare trainer to show a profit over the last five years.
But come left to the Trainer Calendar part of the table and we see a different picture.
As a reminder, the Trainer Calendar looks at the fortunes of a trainer at this point of time over the last five years. So today’s date is the 11th of April and so we if we look at the interval of the 4th of April to the 17th of April over the last five years (the fifteen days centred on today’s date) we can see a different story.
McLintock has saddled only nine runners but has had four winners. Not only does this mean that she has a far better strike rate over this period but she’s profitable.
So we have something which could be looked for. Are there any other horses out there today which have the following trainer criteria.

1. That overall, over the past five years, the trainer is unprofitable.
2. That the period shown on the Trainer Calendar the trainer is profitable.
3. That the strike rate of the Trainer Calendar period is twice that of the overall figure.

These are just arbitary starting points but it’s a start and it’s a good place to begin the analysis and, of course, let’s have a look at today’s racing for a start. It’s not quite 6.40 when this is being typed so there’s no results for the last few races but here’s the day’s runners which fit the above criteria.

So what of the earlier winner today, Arcadian Angel, which won at 10/1?

The trainer, JJ Quinn, has an impressive 254 winners from 1,941 runners giving an overall loss of £352 for £1 stakes and a strike rate of 13%. But the Trainer Calendar period shows a better story: 20 winners from 74 runners. A strike rate of 27% and a profit of £46.
This being a post mortem is just the first step of discovery. There may be nothing in this or this may be something that simple or it could be that a few tweaks are needed along the way. But it’s a start of a new angle to explore and, if nothing else, is interesting.

Update. The 6.45 Tipperary was run just after this post was published. Dasheen was the winner at 10/1.
This is something which clearly needs to be investigated.