The world of horse racing punditry must, I’m sure, be a difficult world to inhabit. Every week you’re potentially subjecting yourself to scrutiny on your opinions while publicly forming your opinions on horses and people and if you get it wrong too often then your credibility with the public, and your colleagues, can be slowly eroded.
Unless you really know what you’re talking about then you could find yourself becoming sidelined in a relatively short space of time.
Because of this I find myself admiring the analyst team at Sky Channel who seem to have built for themselves a formidable legion of form experts that must contribute to a strong body of knowledge throughout the station’s staff.
Sky Channel offers, like their rival TVN, a review program known as Racing Retro, broadcast on Sundays, that concentrates on the events that would’ve taken place on the preceding Saturday and, perhaps, any high-profile midweek meetings.
It’s an enjoyable program as it is made up of a panel that is voluble and diverse in their opinions. Opinions which I feel are reflective of the diversity of views that can be found between any groups of punters.
The gentlemen of the panel have certainly entertained me on many occasions, as the majority of them aren’t afraid to argue between themselves on the merits and foibles of any horse flapping round the tracks of Australia and all five of them are capable of offering instructive insight on both high-class and low-class animals.
In spite of the clear differences in the natures of each panel member the team’s line-up has remained consistent over the past few years.
It is chaired by the genial Graham McNeice who is flanked by Richard Freedman, brother of the famed Lee, to his left and former jockey Ron Dufficy to his right. These three broadcast from a Sydney studio while the other two panel members, Andrew Bensley and Alf Matthews, broadcast from a Melbourne studio.
Andrew Bensley is second to none when it comes to unearthing the latest news from the racing scene while Alf, like Ron Dufficy, is also an ex-jockey.
From my own observations it must be said that these guys do come across as respectable and knowledgeable, so it crossed my mind that there must be some way of profiting from their judgments.
While the panel are always discussing horses, the simple and obvious thing to do would be to analyse the horses that each member offers as a “horse to follow” at the end of each program. While these horses are posted on Sky’s website, we punters are a little bit in the dark as to whether they could be considered as actual sources of profit as this information doesn’t seem to be shown on the website.
Seeing as this info wasn’t to hand then I decided to work out whether these “horses to follow” could be considered genuinely useful betting propositions.
So I took matters in hand and set about investigating every single runner put forward by the team as a horse-to-follow from the period stretching from Nov 2006 – Nov 2007. I must admit I was intrigued by the prospect of sifting through their selections as I felt that there was something slightly different about these tips.
The horses-to-follow suggest, as their label implies, that they are not just to be backed at their next start but perhaps to be pursued for a considerable period of time of their nomination. This idea varies somewhat from the normal tips given to us via the media as most tips are offered on a once-only basis for a particular Saturday or weekday. I considered that perhaps the horses-to-follow had the potential of being profitable simply because most punters didn’t have the will to follow a horse most of the time.
Therefore, if the horse was to fail on its next immediate start then perhaps the public would instantly lose interest. This could mean that the same betting public might allow a nominated horse to go off at much more generous odds on later starts.
Sadly, Racing Retro doesn’t suggest how long you should follow each horse for so I decided to create some kind of ruling on this subject. At first I thought it’d be worth following the horse on its next three starts. However, this caused a problem because, for example, a horse could be nominated to follow just as its coming to the end of its preparation. As a consequence, any one of the next three starts could happen many months down the line. My gut feeling was that the horse-to-follow was all about immediacy because there was probably something that one of the panellists had recently seen or heard that made the horse particularly interesting.
Therefore, I made an iron-clad ruling that the horse should be followed for a set amount of time that would allow for around about three starts during an average preparation. I decided that 56 days (eight weeks) would be the limit. Therefore, I restricted my investigation to horses that raced in the 56 day space stretching from the Sunday that the horse was nominated on.
The results gleaned from this exercise were quite interesting so I though it only fair that I share the information with you. We’ll start with a look at Ron Dufficy’s selections.
| RON DUFFICY |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 39 |
| Number of horses that actually ran in following 56 days | 34 |
| Won next start | 7 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 20.5% |
| P/L | -$14.20 |
| Overall performance over next 56 days |
|---|
| No. of horses that won in 56 day period | 14 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 35.9% |
| Total no. of bets struck | 80 |
| P/L | -$7.90 |
| Nos. of horses nominated by age |
|---|
| 2YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 7 |
| % of total horses nominated | 18.0% |
| No. of winners | 2 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 8 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 3 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 37.5% |
| P/L | -$0.70 |
| 3YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 14 |
| % of total horses nominated | 35.0% |
| No. of winners | 5 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 30 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 6 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 0% |
| P/L | -$15.90 |
| 4YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 18 |
| % of total horses nominated | 46.0% |
| No. of winners | 7 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 42 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 8 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 19.04% |
| P/L | +$8.70 |
Key points
- Joint-highest number of winners across all age ranges along with Alf Matthews.
- Following Ron’s older horses offers a decent strike rate and a modest profit.
GRAHAM MCNEICE
|
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 34 |
| Number of horses that actually ran in following 56 days | 39 |
| Won next start | 4 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 10.25% |
| P/L | -$25.30 |
| Overall performance over next 56 days |
|---|
| No. of horses that won in 56 day period | 11 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 28.2% |
| Total no. of bets struck | 81 |
| P/L | -$22.60 |
| Nos. of horses nominated by age |
|---|
| 2YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 8 |
| % of total horses nominated | 18.6% |
| No. of winners | 0 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 9 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 0 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 0% |
| P/L | -$9.00 |
| 3YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 16 |
| % of total horses nominated | 37.2% |
| No. of winners | 4 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 31 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 6 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 19.35% |
| P/L | -$5.30 |
| 4YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 19 |
| % of total horses nominated | 44.2% |
| No. of winners | 7 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 41 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 8 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 19.51% |
| P/L | -$8.30 |
Key points- Graham seems at his best when nominating Sydney horses to follow from either the stables of Anthony Cummings or John Hawkes.
RICHARD FREEDMAN
|
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 38 |
| Number of horses that actually ran in following 56 days | 34 |
| Won next start | 4 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 11.7% |
| P/L | -$19.30 |
| Overall performance over next 56 days |
|---|
| No. of horses that won in 56 day period | 4 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 11.7% |
| Total no. of bets struck | 72 |
| P/L | -$53.00 |
| Nos. of horses nominated by age |
|---|
| 2YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 6 |
| % of total horses nominated | 15.8% |
| No. of winners | 0 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 8 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 0 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 0% |
| P/L | -$8.00 |
| 3YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 13 |
| % of total horses nominated | 43.2% |
| No. of winners | 3 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 29 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 5 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 17.24% |
| P/L | -$10.00 |
| 4YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 19 |
| % of total horses nominated | 50.0% |
| No. of winners | 1 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 35 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 1 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 2.85% |
| P/L | +$32.10 |
Key points- Nominated more older horses than the other panel members.
- strangely, Richard nominated seven Lee Freedman horses over the twelve month period I studied, yet none of them won at either their next start or over the following 56 day period! However, if you’d backed each of these seven on their next three starts after the 56 day period had elapsed then you would have won six out of 11 bets and made a profit of $18.60. Not a system to work with in reality but weird nonetheless. There will no doubt be some of you who might want to pursue this though, so follow Ribeiro and Zivalee early if they show up for a summer/autumn campaign.
ANDREW BENSLEY
|
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 38 |
| Number of horses that actually ran in following 56 days | 34 |
| Won next start | 2 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 5.8% |
| P/L | -$26.40 |
| Overall performance over next 56 days |
|---|
| No. of horses that won in 56 day period | 6 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 17.64% |
| Total no. of bets struck | 68 |
| P/L | -$22.50 |
| Nos. of horses nominated by age |
|---|
| 2YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 5 |
| % of total horses nominated | 13.2% |
| No. of winners | 1 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 8 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 1 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 12.5% |
| P/L | -$4.50 |
| 3YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 18 |
| % of total horses nominated | 47.4% |
| No. of winners | 2 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 24 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 2 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 8.33% |
| P/L | +$0.40 |
| 4YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 15 |
| % of total horses nominated | 39.4% |
| No. of winners | 3 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 36 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 4 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 11.11% |
| P/L | -$18.40 |
Key points- Following Andrew’s three-year-olds would net you a small profit.
- Over 60 % of Andrew’s nominations were from the younger brigade of two-year-olds and three-year-olds.
ALF MATTHEWS
|
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 42 |
| Number of horses that actually ran in following 56 days | 33 |
| Won next start | 8 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 24.3% |
| P/L | -$0.50 |
| Overall performance over next 56 days |
|---|
| No. of horses that won in 56 day period | 14 |
| % winners (of those that ran) | 41.2% |
| Total no. of bets struck | 88 |
| P/L | -$5.90 |
| Nos. of horses nominated by age |
|---|
| 2YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 9 |
| % of total horses nominated | 21.4% |
| No. of winners | 2 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 10 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 2 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 20.0% |
| P/L | -$4.100 |
| 3YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 13 |
| % of total horses nominated | 31.0% |
| No. of winners | 5 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 35 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 5 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 14.28% |
| P/L | +$14.10 |
| 4YO |
|---|
| Number of horses nominated | 21 |
| % of total horses nominated | 50.0% |
| No. of winners | 7 |
| No of times ran over 56 days | 44 |
| No of wins over 56 days | 8 |
| % of wins over 56 days | 18.18% |
| P/L | -$16.90 |
Key points- Alf has the best statistics of all the Racing Retro panel members.
- Has nominated more “next start” winners than any other panel members
- About a quarter of all Alf’s selections came from just two stables – David Hayes and Peter Moody.
- Following Alf Matthews’ three-year-olds proved to be the most profitable method of making money from Racing Retro’s “Horses-to-Follow”. However, a note of caution, Alf’s strike rate was relatively low at 14.28 % so try to assess his 3yos in more detail before they run.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS
On the face of it, it looks as if the best horses to follow would be the ones nominated by the ex-jockeys on the panel i.e. Ron Dufficy and Alf Matthews. Their horses certainly do have the habit of going in with a fair degree of regularity.
Mind you, it’d be easy to draw all sorts of conclusions from these statistics but I think that by and large all that they really prove is that each panel member is a highly competent observer of thoroughbreds. However, if you want to make money from following their horses then you may end up being somewhat disappointed and, in the end, it does suggest that you the punter should still endeavour to back horses using your own initiative rather than blithely following the tips of others.
The general impression I get from these figures is that these five men have managed to show reasonably good strike rates which usually shows that their nominated horse-to-follow is no back number, however, they do not seem to be profitable to follow in the medium term. It seems that, from the horses that they have nominated to follow, these horses all too frequently go off at miserly odds. This is probably for two reasons:
- The public has taken heed of the panel’s very public nominations and
- The horses that the Racing Retro panel noted had already gone into the black books of many noted racecourse judges anyway.
Funnily enough though, there is another way of making money from the observations of these professional TV judges, although it may seem rather perverse. It goes thusly – if you find that a horse-to-follow of ANY one of the panelists has not run for 56 days then you would be as well to back that horse on its next three runs.
If you’d done this then you would have won eight of your 30 bets (26.6% strike rate) and you would have made a profit of $10.20. Such a finding wholly suggests that each panel member is offering insight each time they nominate a horse to follow but they only become profitable once the horse has dropped off the radar of the general public.
If you want to know which horses from Racing Retro have been nominated as horses-to-follow but which haven’t run for 56 days or more then here they are – along with the stable they last belonged to (they can change hands you see).
| Prince Frederick | Les Bridge |
| Emperator | Graeme Rogerson / J Sadler |
| Motspur | Kris Lees |
| Georgia’s Boy | Gary Sherer |
| Electromotive | Lee Freedman |
| O’Marie | Doug Harrison |
| Forbes | Graeme Rogerson / J Sadler |
| Superior Instinct | Kevin Moses |
| Tzarina | Robbie Griffiths |
| Largo Lad | John Ledger |
| Immortality | Danny O’Brien |
| Dirty Denim | Michael Kent |
It’s possible that some of these horses may not have raced due to some unpublished career-ending injuries but I’m sure most of these will pop up again for a summer/autumn preparation so keep an eye out for them.
Double-check though to make sure that they haven’t raced since 2007. If you’re very keen then you can probably send these names to
www.12follow.com.au and they will send an SMS text to tell you when the beast is running next. Good luck.
By Julian Mould
PRACTICAL PUNTING – FEBRUARY 2008