Betfair Official Blog

Glorious Goodwood: In-running idiosyncracies

Click here to view market

Jack Houghton demonstrates why punters must interrogate their hunches as he looks ahead to Glorious Goodwood.

It's rare for the editors at betting.betfair to reward initiative. They tell their writers what to deliver and, dutifully, we do it. Subject, word length and deadline: these are not matters for discussion; they are dictums thrown down from omnipotent beings to which we mortals comply. It was with some excitement then that, having sent a drunken (and some would say impudent) email suggesting an interesting topic for a future article, I received a positive response: "Write it."

The idea was this. During my time in the Betfair press room I dealt with more in-running stories at Goodwood than at any other racecourse. As a test for horses, there must be something about its idiosyncrasies - up and down hill, tight bends left and right, cambers normal and adverse - which trick the backers and layers of Betfair's in-running markets.

Goodwood, perhaps more than any other track, demonstrates the need for in-running punters to visit the racecourses at which they bet. Television has an homogenising effect on track contours. When watching two-dimensionally, it's hard to recognise the difference between a hill-finish or flat run-in. This can give rise to confusion about how well, or badly, a horse is going.

I'd become convinced this explained the prevalence of in-running stories at Goodwood. A predominantly downhill finish, punctuated with a sharp rise a few yards before the line, means many jockeys make what look like race-winning moves only to be caught in those few, final, climbing strides by horses who have traded at unfathomably large odds in-running: Gift Horse at [48.0] (SP 9-2), Strike The Deal at [36.0] (SP 7-1) and Allegretto at [65.0] (SP 8-1) being just three I remember.

What better way to prove the theory than by looking at some data?

Examining over 65,000 horses who had run on the flat in a five month period, I analysed the percentage of winners who had traded at a higher price in-running than their starting price. At Goodwood, the result was 68 per cent. Sounds high doesn't it? Apparently not. The figure across all tracks is 69 per cent.

Perhaps odds-on losers then? The tendency for jockeys to kick-on down the hill before tiring in the final stages will surely lead to more short-priced in-running horses getting turned over? Afraid not. 5.3 per cent of losers trade at odds-on at Goodwood, compared to the norm of 5.6 per cent.

This wasn't looking good. The editors would not be impressed. Then I realised I was looking at the wrong measures. After all, my assertion was not about run-of-the-mill in-running stories, it was about the really dramatic ones. Perhaps if I looked at those horses who won when trading at a certain percentage book price above the starting price?

No, that didn't work either. Five, ten, 20, 50 per cent. It makes no difference. Big-priced winners or short-priced losers: Goodwood epitomises the mid-point in every instance. If in-running punting at Goodwood were a man, he would be 5' 10", have 2.4 children and make love for seven minutes.

Then it occurred to me. When I worked at Betfair it wasn't my job to alert the press to in-running stories. I only did it when a colleague was unable to. I then remembered that he went on holiday every year in late-July/early-August: when Glorious Goodwood is on. Could this be why I have a slanted view of the track's propensity to stage in-running drama?

I don't know for sure, but this whole episode demonstrates the need to interrogate your hunches: and preferably prior to investing your money (or talking to your editors) on the back of them.

One truth does remain however. During Glorious Goodwood, no more and no less than other meetings, there will be opportunities to profit by betting in-running. I'll be leaving the statistics alone and relying on more consistent methods to bring you a daily preview of the in-running plays and lays.