Betting Strategy / Wayne Bailey / 30 May 2008 / 2 Comments

Our resident statistical guru has been copping flack from all sides for his approach to betting on the horses. It's only fair therefore to give him his right of reply...

Dear oh dear, where do I start...

Does anyone remember the TV show Blockbusters?

It was a great quiz, but completely unfair. For those too young to remember, two contestants would team up and compete against one single contestant.

Anyhow, I was never sure why they came up with that concept of two against one, but I'm beginning to understand how that single contestant must have felt!

For the past few weeks, my betting.betfair.com colleague Simon Rowlands has made various comments about those of us who follow trends and stats. While he didn't mention my name in particular, his distain for such geeks is clear. And just like in Blockbusters, fellow contributor Jack Houghton has aligned himself with Simon, making his position on the subject is also very clear: "Using trend analysis as a method of identifying big-race winners is futile"

Don't forget Jack, that Blockbusters was regularly won by that lone geek (who was very often a librarian!).

Being a friendly guy, I'll first find some common ground between us all. Simon rightly points out that most trend analysis is based on hopelessly small samples, and is very often a crude (and basic) way of looking at our beloved sport. I'm not sure if he includes my work under that heading, but I'd certainly concur with his point - much of the so-called 'trends' that are often spouted are useless.

Jack... well, Jack has his mind made up already, so there's not much I can say there! But still, it's nice to be nice so I'll give him a compliment all the same: The book he wrote 'Winning on Betfair for dummies' was stolen from the library I used to work in, just two days after I bought it (That's actually a true story Jack!). Someone loved his work enough to commit a crime. Now there's a true fan!

But enough being nice - Let's cut to the chase here:

Everyone, whether they realise it or not, uses some sort of trend analysis when betting. If Simon or Jack noticed that a great horse won 14 of his 20 races on firm ground, they may simply state something like: "If the ground stays firm, he'll have conditions in his favour"

My article however, may state something like: "He's won 14 times from 20 races, and 70% of those wins were on firm ground"

Can you see the crux of my argument? They call it form, I call it trends. The outcome for both, is hopefully a pointer in the right direction.

Just like the television weather forecasters, we look at the past to predict the future. Call it form study, call it trends, call it pointers. Call it what you like. We all look back, in the hope of predicting what will happen ahead. Sometimes it falls flat and makes us look like a wally, but even Michael Fish got it wrong at times.

Other times however, if done properly, it works.

I'm a modest guy, but when your hand is forced, you must sing your own praises now and then!

One of my first ever articles for this site was based on UK racing trends. In that article, I advised punters to back horses that matched the following conditions:

• National Hunt (Jump) racing only
• Horse won last time out
• Horse last ran five days ago or less
• Race has eleven runners or less

I'm glad to report, that this strategy (again, note that it was based on past trends) has been a great success in 2007 and 2008 since I posted the article. In fact, here are the full results for the past six-years:

So, why has it continued to show profit since I posted it up here? Coincidence? Luck?

Perhaps, but I'd rather believe that it was the hard work I put in to researching how each variable interacted with each other. Sure, some of my strategies have turned out to be duds, but I can safely say that most of my strategy based articles on this site have shown a great profit overall.

Regarding big race trends, let's take the upcoming Epsom Derby. If I was to tell you that 11 of the past 12 winners came from the first four in the betting... would it make you worried to see you horse drift on the day? I know I'd be concerned.

Finally, if you are still unconvinced, I'm going to give myself, and the trends fans one more plug. On a site I co-own (don't worry Ed, it's a completely free and spamless site!), I publish lays each morning, based on ratings. These ratings are created from... (wait for it)... race trends!

http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=3082

For those who are too lazy to scroll to the last page of the thread, I'll give a quick summary of how 2008 is going so far (The currency is in euros by the way, as I'm based in Ireland):

I'll continue posing those lays daily in the unlikely event that Simon or Jack would consider following my bets!

On a quite serious note, some time spent writing for the Irish Independent, which is Ireland's largest selling newspaper, taught me one thing - if you are going to tip horses to a huge audience- there's no place to hide afterwards.

I'm sure that both Simon and Jack will appreciate that.

I've met dozens of envious people who tell me they'd love to write about racing for a living, but I doubt that many could handle the inevitable criticism and pressure that goes along with it.

If your approach to picking horses is purely 'form study' that's all well and good, but just be sure you can show a profit over time. Similarly, if stats are your thing, you also need to pay the bills and earn your keep.

I'd like to think I hold my own in the latter camp. Equally, Simon and Jack do a great job at what they do - but as the old saying goes: 'Different folks for different strokes'.

Let's hope the three of us can pull a few good strokes in 2008.

Tags: Betting Strategy, Jack Houghton, Simon Rowlands, Wayne Bailey