Horseracing Betting: April and October are the cruellest months

Betting Strategy / Jack Houghton / 27 September 2008 / Leave a Comment

Jack Houghton wonders why the season-end months have been consistently unprofitable for him and discusses the uncertainty surrounding team tactics.

It's been a frustrating few days. I've been away from home and my hosts' internet access blocks all gambling related sites. So I've had no betting.betfair, no Racing Post. Nothing.

It's meant getting creative with how I find my racing fix and so, with no other options, I've spent a lot of the last week analysing past betting records. Nearly every year, it turns out, I lose money in April and October. In fact, in nine years, I've only once made a profit in each of these months: both times as a result of a large multiple bet win cancelling out weeks of disastrous punting.

I present the results of this analysis as if it were a surprise to me. But if I'm honest, I always knew the dual buckle-ends of summer and winter were consistently unprofitable; I've just never bothered to draw out precisely how unprofitable.

So, why April and October? And what to do about it?

April and October are strange racing months. Both see one code enjoy its last shebang, whilst the other eases into its racing proper. As one season ends, races are frequently a conundrum of the fresh-legged against the leg-weary; seen, in microcosm each year, when learned pundits debate whether horses who competed at Cheltenham will match those prepared with only Aintree in mind. And as another season starts, you're usually trying to weigh up a few race-fit horses against those with more back-class.

Now whether I'm unable to account for these factors, or whether I account for them too much and so over-complicate things, I'm not sure. Whatever the reason, I need a solution. Suggestions are welcome. In the meantime, I'm doing for the next month what I've done for the last week. I'm not betting. Until the X-Factor eliminations start that is.

*****

I've returned home to find Aidan O'Brien has been fined £5,000 at an inquiry into the use of team tactics in last month's Juddmonte International. It's been a long time coming. From a personal perspective, there's been something unsatisfactory about the ease of passage enjoyed by a few big-race winners this season, with Haradasun's Queen Anne victory particularly standing out.

And it's not a recent phenomena. In 2000, setting the pace for Giant's Causeway in the Irish Champion Stakes, Apollo Victoria was able to hold a position which gave his stablemate a rail run, with Best Of The Bests forced three wide. A year later, in the same race, Godolphin's Give The Slip pulled off an almost identical trick in giving Fantastic Light first run on Galileo.

Now, I'm not implying for one second that there was anything premeditated in any of the races I have mentioned here. I have neither the proof, nor the legal backing, to suggest such a thing. All I will say is that, for years now, the presence of multiple trainer entries has often led to incidents where you have to question whether all of those entries were being raced with the intention of achieving their best possible position.

The problem is what to do about it. Some will call for the rules to be readdressed. But, as far as I understand, the rules exist; it's been the enforcement that has been lacking. That the BHA have acted in this recent instance might be notice of a hardening stance. But is a fine of £5,000 really comparable to £140,000 of first-place prize money, not to mention the associated increase in Duke Of Marmalade's stud value? It's a bit like a corporation being fined £10,000 for illegally dumping waste in a river, when to dispense of the waste legally would have cost them an extra £50,000. Where's the incentive to play by the rules?

The solution is not obvious. Increasing the fines would seem disproportionate and, given the haze of uncertainty and subjectivity that usually surrounds any question of whether team tactics were in operation or not, anything too punitive would likely be counter-productive in terms of promoting the British racing product. It seems the solution has to be one of prevention rather than punishment.

Unfortunately, there are no straightforward preventative measures either. You can't limit the amount of runners from a stable. If a trainer has horses good enough to be in a race, they deserve their chance. Could you seriously tell Nicholls he was only allowed one Gold Cup entry?

And it's pointless insisting all runners in big-races have achieved a certain level of performance. After all, Red Rock Canyon had a rating equal to, or better than, four other horses in the Juddmonte field and, given the firepower of some racing outfits, it is quite conceivable that someone would compromise a 120+ rated horse to benefit a stable star. I have to admit to being at a loss. Suggestions are again, welcome.