Betting Strategy / Simon Rowlands / 25 February 2009 / 11 Comments

It's human nature to place importance in perceived patterns, but don't blindly accept everything you read, says Simon Rowlands.

My recent holiday gave me ample time to catch up on some reading, including in the field of evolutionary biology (in my defence, it was a long holiday, with plenty of hammock-time to fill).

It has long struck me that parallels can be drawn between some of the findings in this area and behaviour in betting. Richard Dawkins (my favourite public figure and one of my favourite writers) noted in The God Delusion that it is a human foible to see patterns and meaning where patterns and meaning almost certainly do not exist. As a punter, I have to say that sounds familiar.

A recent New Scientist feature expanded on the debate, including as follows: The over-attribution of cause and effect probably evolved for survival. If there are predators around, it is no good spotting them nine times out of 10. Running away when you don't have to is a small price to pay for avoiding danger when the threat is real.

The article went on to describe the findings of an academic experiment, which asked people what patterns they could see in arrangements of dots or stock market information. Half of the participants were made to feel a lack of control before the experiment took place and half were not.

The results were striking. The subjects who sensed a loss of control were much more likely to see patterns where there were none: when we feel a lack of control we fall back on superstitious ways of thinking.

Replace arrangements of dots and stock market information with horseracing results and the dynamics of the Betfair market - a small step in my view - and you should be able to see where I am coming from with this one.

There are patterns and meaning in horseracing results. If there were not, there would be little point in trying to predict anything from them, but the regular over-attribution of cause and effect is widespread and not to be shrugged off as a price worth paying in the way that it was in primitive societies.

You are best taking precautions against predators, whether real or imagined, but a bad bet is a bad bet and should be avoided if possible.

This is the time of year when you are likely to have patterns and meaning in a horseracing context rammed down your throat in the lead up to the Cheltenham Festival. In particular, so-called trends analysis seems to be everywhere.

Trends exist in horseracing and can be important, of that there can be no doubt. For instance, I based the weight-for-age scale at The Sportsman on an analysis of how horses of different age groups had performed against the existing (and in places seriously flawed) official scale, while never forgetting that individual horses are likely to develop at different rates. You will also find younger and more lightly-raced horses faring better or worse in handicaps at certain stages of the season than might otherwise be expected. You would be a fool to ignore such things entirely.

But trends are frequently worthless or worse for a number of reasons, notably when they seek to replace specific knowledge of individual horses with generalities that are far less relevant, and when they are compiled in a crude and simplistic manner, which is far too often.

I have touched on this at greater length on here and elsewhere, so, as a reprise, here are my headline warnings where trends analysis is concerned:

If a trend exists, then it will affect not just winners but losers and the degree to which the winners win and the losers lose: trend analysis should always reflect this.

In addition, concentrating on winners alone often results in small samples and questionable findings.

Trends, where they exist, usually change over time, so be wary of information from a long way back.

Question seriously any findings that do not seem to obey logic and common sense: they may well be down to chance.

Disregard trends analysis that assumes that all factors are of the same significance and which advocate filtering (e.g. Horse A qualifies on four of five criteria when the missing criterion outweighs all the others combined).

Understand that many writers on trends, like writers about astrology and things that go bump in the night, have space to fill for a gullible public and jobs to hold down: it is in their best interests to make trends seem more significant than they are.

The easiest way to make trends seem more significant than they are is to analyse them crudely, such as by considering winners only from the past ten years, with the result that chance happenings appear significant to the credulous.

With Cheltenham now just round the corner, take time out to assume control of your fate and (as the soothsayer in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar might have said) beware the ideas of March.

* * *

John McCririck and I have a long shared history, not that he is likely to realise it. Our paths first crossed when I, as a spotty teenager, wrote to half a dozen racing journalists asking for advice on how to get into the game, and he alone bothered to reply (and replied at some length). I have never thanked him for that as I should have.

After such a promising start, things went rapidly downhill. During the Thatcher Years he cornered the market in reactionary diatribe and I cornered my own market in utopian left-wing claptrap. Never the twain could meet.

The 90s and noughties were mostly not much better, with McCririck hellbent on seeking attention, seemingly at any cost and with little regard to what came out of his mouth or out of some of his other orifices.

But age mellows all, even Big Mac and me, and I have come round to a grudging admiration for some of what the man chooses to stand for.

In particular, I wish to commend him for his indefatigable pursuit of Lord Donoughue, still the chair of the Starting Price Regulatory Committee, despite that body's questionable recommendations, despite the man's often-lame attempts at justifying those recommendations, and despite his having only recently severed links with a bookmaker who will have benefited significantly from the new starting-price process.

McCririck described Donoughue's continuation in the role as a scandal, and I agree.

It is good to have a loudmouth like McCririck on your side when people are trying to sweep indiscretions, or worse, under the carpet. Good on you, I say, and don't give up the fight.

Comments (11)

1. charlie | 25 February 2009

   Hi Simon

   Talking of people benefitting, do you think some receive "special" treatment from the bookmakers

   Ie: thier account does not get restricted or shut down like a normal Joe

   
   Maybe you could do some research amongst your friends, colleagues and do an article abuot your findings

   Cheers

   Charlie

2. Stu | 25 February 2009

   Hi Simon,

   Good to see you back - hope you had a grand break. As ever, you're bang on about trends. I find articles on Cheltenham trends interesting to read - but I'm always dismayed when authors dismiss "outliers" (e.g. Katchit's win as a 5YO). I also hate the "don't consider horses other than the front two in the betting" type trends.

   On going against received wisdom: I've been looking at the Arkle and it struck me that I'msingingtheblues has been labelled a flat track horse. However, he has won around Cheltenham (in his hurdling days). Is there a difference between jumping fences at Cheltenham and jumping hurdles? If not, then the fact that this one is double the odds of Calgary Bay even though he is rated the same may signal value...

   Stu

3. R Hills is God | 25 February 2009

   A pertinent article.

   Craig Fake would be better off following up McCririck's good work and looking at the trends in the SP margins since Donoughue started messing, rather than doling out some more tired tips.

4. Simon Rowlands | 25 February 2009

   Good to hear from you Charlie, Stu and, ahem, R Hills is God (Dawkins might find that difficult to swallow on a number of counts).

   Charlie, I am aware of some journalists having preferential treatment back in the late 80s and early 90s when I "networked" rather more. But I do not know of the same being the case now. I neither stick my snout in the trough of the Press Room, nor indeed emerge from behind my computer, often these days.

   I also think that the arrangements were usually in order for bookmakers to get ahead of market moves, but a lot of that is more in the open these days as a result of Betfair.

   The only "special arrangements" I am aware of now is that some of my friends (not me, I hasten to add, or at least not these days) are unable to get more than spare change on. With the conventional bookmakers, that is. They are discriminated against rather than for, in other words.

   Stu, I am sadly off the pace with regards to this year's Cheltenham, but will be spending the next two weeks catching up fast. From what I can tell, I agree with you about I'msingingtheblues. His win off 147 last time indicates that he is good enough, or very nearly good enough, to win an ordinary Arkle. There is not a lot wrong with his hurdles form at Cheltenham, for all that he is a better horse now.

   I think there is a slight concern about his jumping, however, and a strongly run race at Cheltenham tends to punish such things. All told, though, I think he looks over-priced (from the man who is holding a sizeable ante-post voucher on Sizing Europe for the Champion Hurdle at just over 9s....)

   RHiG, no comment.

   Simon

5. cats11 | 02 March 2009

   Simon,

   Is there anywhere we can find the weight-for-age scale that you developed for The Sportsman.

   I always thought that on the official wfa, 3yos receive too much weight from their elders between spring and autumn, does your WFA scale indicate anything similar?

   Thanks

6. cats11 | 03 March 2009

   Doh, forgot to specify the race distances

   'at distances of 10f and over'

7. Simon Rowlands | 03 March 2009

   Hi cats11.

   I have a copy of The Sportsman's Flat wfa scale and can pass it on if the editor of this site wishes to act as an intermediary. Let me know if you would like that and I will endeavour to make it happen.

   There is a difference between it and the official wfa scale in the area you identify, though not quite so great nor so long-lasting a difference as I had recalled. The scale is much more like Timeform's, which is perhaps not surprising given that I was involved on occasions in looking into the accuracy of the latter.

   As an example, The Sportsman's scale allows 3yos 5lb less than officially at 10f in the first half of April and 2 lb in the first half of July. The figures are 3 lb and 0 lb for 12f at the same stages.

   The main problem with the official wfa scale is the excessive amounts allowed to 2yos. This continues to be ignored as, with the occasional exception of races like the Nunthorpe, it is considered to be an academic matter rather than a practical one.

   However, it is not simply academic if you are factoring wfa into your time calculations (I will touch on this in some articles on time analysis on here in a couple of weeks' time), and in any case it has a knock-on effect for those 2yos when they become 3yos, as they start off out of kilter.

   The effect tends to be masked by many of the 3yos that take on elders in handicaps earlier in the season being exposed and not well-handicapped, but it shows up more in time analysis.

   Simon

8. Ian | 03 March 2009

   Hi Simon
   I agree with your opinion on the official wfa scale but I don't understand why anybody who is serious about time analysis would bother trying to factor in any wfa scale.

9. Simon Rowlands | 03 March 2009

   Hi Ian.

   The reason for factoring in wfa as I see it is that if you are running a commercial ratings organisation, be it time-based or form-based (the two are inextricably linked), you are faced with applying some sort of across-the-board adjustment or with seeing a fall off in the headline success rate of your ratings.

   That was my experience when I experimented with dropping wfa altogether on the Flat. Ratings are of much more use than can be judged by top-rated winners alone, of course, but any commercial outfit is likely to see that as the bottom line.

   Even if you do, as an individual, drop wfa, you are faced with predicting physical improvement (as opposed to improvement as the result of acquired experience) on an individual basis or encountering a situation in which ratings from just a few months back exist at a much lower level than recent ones.

   I can see merit in this approach, when pursuing top-rated winners is not the sole goal, and have recognised it as a valid option in my forthcoming piece about time analysis on here.

   The importance, or otherwise, of wfa is not to be confused with the importance of weight, of course.

   Simon

10. Ian | 03 March 2009

    Ah right Simon, I see what you mean about commercial ratings. I agree about the importance of factoring in weight carried, it is essential as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that a lot of people read William Quirin's studies into weight carried and came to the wrong conclusion.

11. Simon Rowlands | 03 March 2009

    I agree with you on that also: you are in danger of stealing my thunder!

    I have already written in my time-analysis piece: "I am with Sir Isaac Newton and the laws of the universe, rather than with those who take the masking effects of other factors in horseracing as evidence that weight is inconsequential..."

    I think the problem is that many people who seized on such studies have little or no knowledge of handicapping in a form sense of the word. If they did, they would not be surprised.

    A discussion for another time, maybe!

    Simon

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: