Jack Houghton's Better Betting Resolutions

Betting Strategy / Jack Houghton / 02 January 2009 / 6 Comments

Why should racing knowledge have any impact on punting profitability? Jack Houghton offers three tenets which have governed his punting for the last few years...

A few years back - having obliterated a significant portion of my betting bank - I took a sabbatical from punting. For two months I didn't follow the sport at all. I went skiing. Caught up with old friends. Read books without racing themes. Became human again.

Another four months passed before betting recommenced. In that time a lot of work was done trying to resolve a recurring question: how could someone, who ostensibly knew so much about racing, have lost so much money?

The answer wasn't forthcoming. But then it was the wrong question to be asking. After all, why should breadth of racing knowledge have any direct impact on punting profitability? Yes, I could tell you most things there were to tell about horseracing past and present; but none of it impacted on accurately predicting racing future. More knowledge wasn't needed; better knowledge was.

Throughout this period of extended thought, I settled on three tenets that would govern all future punting. As this is a time of resolutions, I thought I would share them here. Someone else might find them a useful starting point in redressing their own betting approach. They might also want to check out Simon Rowlands' articles on betting rules from a while back.

Tenet One: Be Analytical

It is my firm belief that all long-term losing is driven by punters' inability or unwillingness to detach themselves from the mystique of racing. The sport we bet on is a chaotic mass of not-very-intelligent beings - horse and human - behaving in not very rational ways. It's impossible to make sense of it all.

To win, you need a method of assessing horseracing chance that is slightly better than market average. It's not pretty, and - if what interests you is resolution of universal truths - not very satisfying; but aiming for anything more will turn you mental. So abandon thoughts of supernatural overlords making runic sense of racing disorder. And abandon any piece of information of the numinous ilk in general.

Early on in the sabbatical, I resolved to only use information that could be quantified with a consistent degree of accuracy. In other words, unless I could put a number next to it, and unless that number could be precisely fed in to a model that predicted a horse's chance of winning, I wasn't interested. As I've written before, for me this means using speed ratings to create tissue prices and not much else. The panoply of other information that exists - draw biases, trainer form, breeding data, jockey form - might have use to some, but I've been unable to find a way of consistently applying any of it. So it's ignored.

This approach might seem purist in the extreme. And it probably wouldn't suit most punters. But as a default position it's useful to consider. It makes you completely cynical about any piece of information you haven't dissected and proved or disproved for yourself; but given the amount of bollocks that masquerades as truth out there, that's no bad thing.

Tenet Two: Be A Specialist

It's hard to be truly analytical - however you choose to do that - if you're dealing with too much data in the first place. I constantly meet people who claim to be profitable whilst simultaneously reeling off a long list of the sports they've bet on in the last week. And I know - with certainty - that they're lying. To bet properly - and maintain any kind of non-punting life - requires limiting what you bet on. And for most of us, this should even mean specializing within a sport.

Over time, I've worked out the types of races where my approach to punting works best and now only bet on those races. On most days this means analysing between two and four races. I wouldn't have the first clue how to assess a sprint handicap, or a big handicap chase, so I don't bother. An old colleague used to say his biggest advantage over bookmakers was that they had to price up every race, but he could choose the races he bet in. Sage advice.

Tenet Three: Be Disciplined

I have a dangerous predisposition to mug punting. I just like it. Can't explain why. But the feeling of impending penury should I fail to back the winner of this Folkestone bumper just appeals to some strange, self-destructive part of my make up. So disciplined punting has always been difficult. If I'm watching a race, I find it hard not to have a bet "just for an interest."

My solution has been to hardly watch any racing. I'll let you in to a secret... I didn't watch the Derby this year. Or any other in a long list of big races. Surprised? Shocked? Disgusted? Well what about this... I hardly ever even watch a race I've had a bet in!

The thing is, what started as a method of stopping me having stupid bets has turned into more. It's hard, when you watch a lot of racing, to stop yourself developing opinions . You notice a horse that jumps left, another that seems irresolute in a finish, still another that looked to be given an easy race. All these things make for good talking points with racing fans, but when you're trying to reduce races to quantifiable certainties, opinions of this sort tend to cloud your thinking somewhat.

Comments (6)

1. Steve C | 05 January 2009

   Hi Jack

   As ever another interesting article. Being keen on numbers myself I have been looking into speed ratings as a prime tool in assessing races. Do you compile your own or use some that are already available, eg topspeed, timeform etc. Any pointers would be appreciated.

   regards
   Steve C
   

2. Jack Houghton | 06 January 2009

   Steve

   Thanks for the comment.

   I compile my own. It took a lot of work initially, but I now have it set up so that it's a largely automatic process. I drop in results and some spreadsheet macros do the rest.

   In terms of whether it's worth your time doing this yourself, that's debatable. The services offered by a number of organisations are largely sound, but of course you're then using data everyone has access to, so naturally it will be harder to have as much of an "edge" over the market. On the other hand, you can have a certain amount of confidence in the reliability of the numbers; whereas with doing your own you need to give yourself a long time (and likely a few re-writes of the assumptions) before you have the confidence to support your ratings by punting off the back of them.

   My choice to do my own was driven by three things. First, the desire to have something no one else did. Second, a dissatisfaction with some of the core assumptions used by other rating services (particularly how they dealt with going allowances). And third, a bit of a spreadsheet fetish which means I enjoy working out clever ways to get spreadsheets to do things for me.

   If you're thinking about going down this route yourself, I really recommend trawling back through some of the articles on here: a few by myself but a whole lot more by Simon Rowlands on value, ratings, and a whole range of related topics. With Simon's articles particularly, there have been some great discussions started in the comments section (I remember one on converting ratings to tissue prices) that are worth a second, or third, read.

   If I were you, I would pay particular attention to an article of Simon's a while back where he talked about connecting speed and handicap ratings - I remember it helped me crystalise a lot of things. And I think it would help someone starting out in this to establish "first principles".

   Hope this helps. Good luck, and if Simon's reading, he might have more to add...

3. Mark Chapman | 14 January 2009

   Hi Jack,

   Can understand why you use speed ratings, but am amazed you ignore things like draw bias and trainer form in your analysis.

   I too make 100% books to find value selection/s. When I started this approach I failed to take in to account trainer form and pace in the race. Something that bookmakers do (to a certain degree). Therefore, I found my value assessment fundamentally flawed. My value selections were not true value at all. Constantly backing those who were only the price they were because of the trainer being out of form or unlikely to be suited by the pace in the race.
   Do you ignore draw bias at Chester? Draw is surely a significant part of a horses true chance at such a course.

   A punter I believe needs to take in to account all nessecary knowledge to find true value.

4. Steve C | 15 January 2009

   Hi Jack/Mark

   Following on from the earlier comments I have now found a speed/form ratings method I am comfortable with but can´t seem to find a way into turning these into a tissue. At the mo using a crude way seems to keep highlighting poor value in favs and value in bigger priced gg´s. I applied my ratings to the 2.50 Lingfield yesterday, which was a 4 runner race. They indicated that the two outsiders were value so I backed them to small stakes and the outsider of the 4 won at 8-1, but i believe this was a fluke. Any hints would be appreciated

5. paul | 31 January 2009

   I read all your articles with interest, I am particularly interested, in 2009, in doing my own speed ratings for 2yr olds only.
   The reasonn for this is that they are genuine keen horses and it is a pleasure to see the best come through. However here is the twist, I do not bet but just enjoy the sport however I am very taken in your spreadsheet talents as it would be ideal if I could just enter the results and obtain speed ratings however I am rubbish at excel, so I am wondering if you could do an article how to do an excel spreadsheet for speed ratings, thank you.

6. Simon Rowlands | 21 February 2009

   Hi Paul.

   I know that Jack is away at present, and it is possible that he will write the article you request when he returns. But if he doesn't then I hope to do something along these lines around the start of the UK Flat season elsewhere on this site.

   The main reason I have dodged the subject to date is that it would be impossible to do justice to it in just one article. But the spreadsheet option would allow it to be presented on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis and then possibly returned to at greater length later.

   One of the chief advantages of running any system of ratings, be they form-based, time-based or otherwise, is that it forces you into interacting with results regularly and in a structured manner. Even if your ratings are of limited immediate use themselves this discipline has positive spin-offs.

   Small matter of Cheltenham to get through first, however!

   Simon