- Betting.Betfair Home
- Horse Racing
- Cricket
- European & International Football
- Golf
- Greyhounds
- Horse Racing
- Other sports
- Paul Nicholls
- Rugby
- Tennis
- The Betfair Debate
- UK & Ireland Football
- US Sports
Sport News 24/7
Simon Rowlands' Betting Masterclass: Understand sectionals and gain an edge!
Betting Strategy 
/ Simon Rowlands / 31 August 2010 / 16 Comments Free £25 Bet
Workforce's final 3.33 furlongs in this year's Derby was exceptional
Britain is the only 'major' racing jurisdiction not to publish sectionals and, while this is lamentable, it gives you the chance to get ahead of the masses. Provided you can put the work in...
"Official sectionals are part of the furniture in many other "major" racing jurisdictions, and their absence in Britain can be seen as an indictment of those who run the sport. The argument that sectionals would have little worth in Britain due to the varied nature of the courses has no more validity than does the same argument for ignoring overall race times."
Last week's blog showed how sectionals can be taken and used to indicate how quickly or slowly a race ended relative to the average speed of that race. This simple process can help to confirm or refute impressions about the pace of a race and indicate which horses might or might not have been favoured.
Taking sectionals for individual horses is more complicated but not as unfeasible as might be imagined.
For a start, you do not need to take times for every horse. Instead, you can use the information for the leader, as in last week's example, and estimate the sectionals for individual horses from that.
Individual finishing times can be engineered from the result as shown in a much earlier blog-series about time analysis. A similar process can be used to establish sectionals for individual horses, by working in margins behind the leader at the sectional juncture.
How much time you should allow for a given margin - judged visually - depends on a few factors, notably the speed at which the horses were travelling at the sectional and the actual length of a horse. However, we are looking for workable figures rather than accuracy to the nth degree, and often this can be achieved by using the same lengths-to-time conversion as at the finish.
Therefore, a winner that was three lengths behind the leader at the sectional should have 0.5 sec knocked off the closing sectional for the leaders if six lengths per second is being used. If the same horse did not win, then the amount in time it was behind the winner at the finish should be added back on to come up with an individual sectional time for that horse.
The individual horses' finishing speeds can be established by the same formula as shown last week, that is: (T*d*100)/(t*D).
For instance, while the sectional from the path about 3.33 furlongs out to the line in this year's Derby at Epsom was 104.3% for the leaders, that for the winner, Workforce, was about 108.4%.
What does this mean? Well, consideration of numerous races over many years at the Derby distance at Epsom suggests that a finishing speed of around 105%, on what is a largely downhill section, is the best way to achieve a time that is good relative to a horse's ability.
The degree to which running a race in an inefficient manner compromises a horse's overall time should be a function of the difference between optimum finishing speed and actual finishing speed - squared - and, I believe, the proportion of the overall race distance covered by the sectional.
The following is a slight simplification, but I recommend using: (O-A)*(O-A)*(d/D), where O is optimum finishing speed %; A is actual finishing speed %; d is the sectional distance; D is the overall race distance; and the product is the number of pounds by which the horse's overall race time was affected.
The provision of accurate electronic sectionals for several years by TurfTrax meant that this hypothesis could be tested against real events, and in particular against extreme cases in which horses finished very quickly or very slowly. It stood up well.
It should be remembered also that, as mentioned last week, we are looking to use closing sectionals that are almost always between 20% and 40% of the race length, so (d/D) will be in a narrow range.
The TurfTrax data also meant that it was possible to establish that, for instance, optimum finishing speeds on the Polytrack all-weather tracks are around 101%-102% in most cases for distances at up to and including a mile and a quarter but were higher at longer trips. Optimum finishing speed %s at Southwell, where the surface is Fibresand, are lower than on Polytrack, but not by a great deal.
A surface which is riding particularly slowly, such as is sometimes the case at Southwell and (at least in the past) at Wolverhampton, reduces the optimum finishing % as horses end up "plodding", but the optimums appear to vary hardly at all under normal circumstances.
Official sectionals are part of the furniture in many other "major" racing jurisdictions, and their absence in Britain can be seen as an indictment of those who run the sport. The argument that sectionals would have little worth in Britain due to the varied nature of the courses has no more validity than does the same argument for ignoring overall race times.
While a certain amount of guesswork and inaccuracy is inevitable when taking hand-held sectionals, they can turn up some real nuggets. The all-weather tracks, with their relative consistency of surfaces and high volume of racing, provide a good opportunity to get stuck in.
With all-weather action increasing from this point on, I hope to write about any significant sectional findings over coming months.
Simon Rowlands | 01 September 2010
Some interesting sectionals from the four polytrack races at Lingfield this afternoon.
6f SAXONETTE 74.78 sec overall (23.6 sec last 2f) = 105.6% finishing speed, suggesting a steadily run race and a marking up of her performance by 6 lb.
6f ELSIE’S ORPHAN 73.57 sec (23.3 sec) = 105.3%, same as above.
7f PAPHOS 86.92 sec (25.2 sec) = 98.5%, well run and winner upgraded 2 lb.
7f MRS MOGG 87.12 sec (25.0 sec) = 99.6%, well run and winner upgraded 1 lb.
But the most interesting performance of all was probably that of the runner-up in Elsie’s Orphan’s race, TOMS RETURN, who came from 5 lengths behind at the sectional to be beaten just ¾ length.
Had this been a strongly run race, with the winner coming back in 25 sec, then Toms Return would have run the race close to optimally. But it was not strongly run, and instead he did well, to the degree that I would be looking for him to beat the winner by 2½ to 3 lengths if they met again in the same circumstances but in a race run at a true pace.
The card was also another in the eye for anyone imagining that pace biases are course-specific rather than race-specific.
The first three winners were in the lead at the sectional (so much for Lingfield “favouring those who come from behind”), but the Sporting Life close-up on the last winner starts with “in rear...”
Simon,
If Toms Return's race had been run at a true pace then how can you be so specific of improvement in that TR would not have run out of puff and would not have been able to finish anywhere near as fast as in the Lingfield race? surely it is as much to do with the positioning of the horse in the race by the jockey as the horse's latent ability. Who knows which jockey may ride or how in future races? You are speculating about what might have happened against what actually did happen.
Simon Rowlands | 02 September 2010
Thank you, Darth.
I can speculate on how the horse might have performed under different conditions as there is not only a theory of physics/bioenergetics involved but a large body of evidence - a number of years of furlong-by-furlong sectionals at all the all-weather tracks provided by TurfTrax - from which to draw conclusions about how non-optimum sectionals affect performance.
However, you are right to point out that it IS speculation. Different horses can respond to different circumstances somewhat differently. That is why I stated "I would be looking for him to beat the winner by 2½ to 3 lengths". As ever in racing, I may not get what I am looking for. :-)
The questions are whether using sectionals to judge the pace of a race has utility (it does) and whether using them to estimate the latent abilities of the individual horses has utility (I am convinced it does).
A parallel might be allowing for the effect of the draw. You do not KNOW that, say, marking up the far-side group on the straight course at a mile at Ascot by 3 lengths is correct. But you can be fairly confident that the approach "works" if applied when the evidence supports it.
Speculating about what might have happened is part and parcel of horseracing analysis.
I am, however, very aware of the danger of straying too far from "reality". The sectional calculations I use are deliberately designed to be cautious in this respect.
Simon
Charlie | 03 September 2010
Hi again Simon.
The easiest format for Fractions/beaten length information is as used in US and in this format most should pick up the use of fractions/BL very easily.
22 - 45 - 71 1-1 1-1 2-hd
No disrespect, but your overcomplicating the simple in my humble opinion.
Simon Rowlands | 03 September 2010
Hi Charlie.
I would agree that the US version is the "easiest". It is also manifestly inaccurate.
Using 1/5 second per length implies that a horse is, e.g., 3.52 yards in length for a race of 1m run in 1:40.00 and 3.93 yards in length for a race of 5f run in 56.00. This could be the same horse, who in "reality" is likely to be something like 3 yards in length.
This is clearly wrong, however convenient it might be.
Nonetheless, I too have suggested simplifying matters in the above, but by dividing seconds by the lengths per second in use for the race result rather than by 5 as the US does regardless.
This is also inaccurate, but it at least returns figures close to what is being measured, which is the visual length of a horse.
I have usually converted visual margins to time lapses by considering the speed of the horse in the sectional.
However, as hand-held sectionals and visual margins suffer from a degree of inaccuracy this might seem to be taking things too far and so I mentioned this option only in passing in the above.
Simon
Charlie | 03 September 2010
Hi Simon
Google Paceandcap
You should find the material contained in the forum of interest.
Simon Rowlands | 03 September 2010
Good man: I look forward to reading up on that.
Simon
Ian | 03 September 2010
Interesting stuff, Simon.
I agree about some of the U.S. methods.
I think Barry Meadow revealed all we need to know about Sartin.
Simon Rowlands | 03 September 2010
Thanks, Ian.
I have only read Sartin's stuff in passing and am not especially enamoured with much of the other stuff I have read from the US about racing.
There is too much preoccupation with position rather than with pace (and confusing of the two distinct elements) and too much treatment of pace biases as if they are immutable, for starters.
Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about what you mean by the final line of your comment.
Cheers
Simon
Ian | 03 September 2010
Yes I agree entirely with you about pace biases.
You're probably aware about the story of Sartin being a psychologist, whose approach to treating a bunch of truck driving problem gamblers was to teach them how to win. Which in itself is enough to set loud alarm bells ringing.
Well, Barry Meadow (author of Money Secrets at the Racetrack), wrote an article that shed a very different light on Sartin.
Meadow stated that Sartin wasn't a real doctor - that his degree was by mail order - and that the reformed "winning" truck drivers could never be found, despite Meadow's best efforts.
It has been claimed that Sartin used to buy a ticket for every horse in a race, then produce the winning ticket and explain to his students how he had picked the winning horse. Also that Sartin's profits came from conducting betting "seminars" and selling numerous software packages and not from successful gambling.
Simon Rowlands | 03 September 2010
Now that IS interesting, Ian!
I found some confirmation of this on the internet (unfortunately Meadow's article seems to be obtainable only by Pony Express).
I suppose it depends on what people were claiming for the guy, and also what he was claiming for himself.
It might have been legitimate, in certain circumstances, to concoct a winning ticket to make a point. Providing the point was not simply to bolster Sartin's reputation.
I also think that we should judge the man on his works, rather than on who he claimed to be (or indeed was).
But, don't worry, I am just about the last person to accept someone else's methods as gospel without checking them thoroughly myself!
Simon
Ian | 03 September 2010
Yes, fair comment, Simon. I don't believe that somebody has to necessarily be a successful punter in order to be an authority on horse racing analysis.
However, I do think that a lot of the Sartin methodology explanations for choosing the appropriate pace lines are pure mumbo jumbo.
Anonymous | 03 September 2010
Forgot to say.
To gain access to library and more material than you can shake a stick at you will need to contacta board admin Ted Craven via PM.
I also advise reading Jim Bradshaws Five Step Approach to the Match Up which can be found in the Hat Check, How can we Help forum.
All the best
Simon Rowlands | 04 September 2010
Last night's meeting at Kempton provided some more interesting fare from a sectional point of view.
I made the winners' closing sectionals as follows: 102.5%; 106.2%; 97.2%; 105.5%; 99.5%; 106.9%; 107.9%; and 110.5%.
The majority of the races were steadily or even slowly run, as the above shows, with Boxeur des Rues and Golden Tempest the exceptions.
Busker went too fast in the former race, and Tagansky and Gentleman Is Back (second and third at the sectional) probably would have gone close, rather than finished third and fourth, ridden a bit more conservatively. Meanwhile, the winner came back in a near-optimum sectional.
Boxeur des Rues was a well-bred debutant from a good stable who should build on this. But if he and the others were all exposed handicappers I would have no hesitation in saying that he had been flattered to a degree. He may be overbet next time in any case.
Golden Tempest and Freckenham, 1-2 in the nursery, came from seventh and eighth at the sectional to run their races close to optimum. The third, My Love Fajer, was second at the sectional, less than a length behind the good pace, and came back in 98.8% speed. He is the one to take from that race from a sectional point of view.
Earlier on, Halfsin did pretty well to come from fifth to chase home Tick Tock Lover and Splash Point, 1-2 at the sectional and at the line, recording a finishing speed of 107.1%. The figures suggest that the Marco Botti-trained newcomer can be rated alongside the winner.
Simon
Simon Rowlands | 04 September 2010
One last thing from Kempton last night. The Racing Post "analysis" on the first race stated that "it was run to suit the closers".
The first four came from 10th, 7th, 9th and 6th at the sectional, but the race was not run to "suit" those horses. In fact, they did quite well. All four of them came home with sub-36 second sectionals off a pace which had not been strong.
This is one of the hazards of trying to judge pace without using the clock. Racereaders tend to rely on where the principals have come from as an indication of how strong the pace was.
Racereaders tend to be right but are sometimes wrong.
humphrey | 10 September 2010
I have loads of Sartin programs if anyone is interesting in either manual of programmed entry