Flat Racing Betting Strategy: Why now is the time to back the three-year-olds

Simon Rowlands / Simon Rowlands / 22 June 2010 / Leave a Comment

Treadwell bucks the trends by winning at Royal Ascot

"You could have made a tidy profit just by backing all three-year-olds racing in open-aged handicaps at further than a mile between June 27 and July 31."

Sound betting advice came Simon Rowlands's way from an unlikely source but it all stacks up - read on for all the reasons why you should be backing the younger generation during mid-summer

Pearls of wisdom sometimes emanate from the unlikeliest of sources. I was reminded of that fact when reading the words of Mark Winstanley a few weeks ago. In a Racing Post tipping piece which started with an unrepeatable joke involving Mrs Winstanley and a trip to Morrisons, "The Couch" stated "my rules with three-year-olds taking on older horses is to never back them until after Royal Ascot".

I set about trying to establish whether this was good advice or, as the man himself might put it, a load of Watford Gap.

It seems as if he is on to something, and I don't just mean an unexpected bargain among the frozen prawns. While anyone sticking rigidly to this rule would miss some good opportunities - such as Treadwell, the sole three-year-old in last week's Buckingham Palace Handicap at Royal Ascot and a 14/1 winner - there is much to be said for the sort of forbearance urged by Winstanley.

Taking 2008 as a test case, I measured the performance of three-year-olds taking on their elders in handicaps by % of rivals beaten. There was not a lot to get excited about overall, with three-year-olds improving from roughly 45% of rivals beaten in the period leading up to Royal Ascot to just better than the par of 50% in the month after it.

Things were significantly different, however, if you divided races into those at up to and including a mile and those at further than a mile, and if you moved the watershed date on a few days to June 27. Three-year-olds racing at up to a mile come in at roughly 45% before that date and 48% in the weeks after it, but those racing at longer distances weigh in at 50% and 57% respectively.

The 60%-plus figure achieved by the younger generation in races beyond a mile in mid-July is equivalent to a length or two in many circumstances and is easily enough to make the difference between winning and losing and being placed and being an also-ran.

In terms of profit/loss, three-year-olds registered a thumping 31.4% deficit on turnover up to and including June 26 at all distances (264 bets). Between June 27 and July 31, those racing at up to and including a mile posted a 19.4% loss on investment (395 bets) but those racing at beyond a mile returned a 6.0% surplus (258 bets).

In other words, you could have made a tidy profit just by backing all three-year-olds racing in open-aged handicaps at further than a mile between June 27 and July 31. These figures are for betting at industry SP: they would have been considerably healthier if the bets had been placed on Betfair.

My advice is to pay three-year-olds more respect in handicaps in the next few weeks and to pay those racing at longer distances the most respect of all. The likes of Red Badge, Music of The Moor and Sing Sweetly catch the eye in the coming days.

I also advise that the next time you are sniffing around the freezer compartments in your local supermarket you check that there is not a slightly overweight man, in a shell suit and with a glint in his eye, hanging around if you are tempted to bend over and reach for that last packet of peas...

* * *

The Form Book may be a repository of largely indisputable facts, but the multiple interpretations placed on it would put the most committed sophist or theologian to shame. How else is it possible to explain the apparently sincere contention that the Derby form "looked dodgy" and "took a knock" as a result of the King Edward VII Stakes at Royal Ascot?

Two horses have run out of The Derby to date. One was At First Sight, a surprise second at Epsom but only fourth at Royal Ascot. The other, Buzzword, finished a place ahead of him at Royal Ascot and about 20 lb closer to the winner than had been the case when he was eighth at Epsom.

Taken in isolation, it could be said that At First Sight's effort devalued the Derby form. Taken in isolation, it could be said that Buzzword's effort, in the very same race, boosted the Derby form.

The questionable nature of taking things in isolation - of extrapolating from individual cases and of cherry-picking - when a fuller picture exists should be obvious. I have gone on about it often enough.

But the alternative would not necessarily serve the needs of those with closed minds or a particular agenda to pursue, and it would not make for such easy soundbites. So we continue to be fed half-truths by those who should know better. Don't be fooled.