INFORMATION SOURCE 

The Racing Horse genuinely believes MATHEMATICS are the GOVERNING FORCE of SUCCESSFUL HORSE RACING BETTING, so the base and foundation from which our strategy, systems and general betting life are built. If the reader does not accept this assertion, our explanation regarding information source will render the rest of this chapter worthless.

An information source refers to a person, object, or location that provides, generates, or is the origin of information. These sources are categorised as either primary or secondary. Such a source may then enlighten an individual about a particular subject or impart knowledge on it.

The absorption and assessment of information are challenging due to pre-existing betting mindsets influenced by ingrained dogma, which is difficult to dismantle. No one is entirely neutral or open, every person harbors biases. They may not acknowledge them, but the experiences of life affect everyone in various ways. For bettors, the challenge lies in discarding fallacies to ensure a pure bet - a concept that will be demonstrated further in this chapter.

Betting information is widely accessible at little or no cost, yet its interpretation is key to profiting. Utmost caution is necessary when distinguishing between reliable data and clutter. Clutter often consists of false, non-contextual, biased, and hyped information. Some of this misleading information may be presented in a very sophisticated manner, creating an illusion of credibility and importance.

 For instance, the Racing Post, Timeform, Attheraces, and other outlets have erroneously merged all Southwell AW records, treating performances on the old Fibresand surface as equivalent to those on the new Tapeta surface. This constitutes a complete misrepresentation.

The two surfaces could not be more different. Fibresand is known for being particularly unforgiving and challenging for racing, often likened to heavy turf conditions, whereas Tapeta is akin to good ground. Unfortunately, most bettors are either ignorant or unaware of this fact, which only exacerbates the issue. It is imperative for bettors to comprehend the optimal conditions for racing if they aim to achieve long-term profitability from their wagers.

*

Some bettors love trends, whilst others consider them mostly meaningless. Every mathematical figure contains value, but without the proper authority, it can be irrelevant and without value. Trends are best employed to distinguish the serious contenders from the pretenders, rather than for bettors to seek out statistics that affirm their prior personal biases. Although racing trends play a part in preparation, relying solely on them for wagering is a misuse.

Trends can often be contradictory, harking back to outdated formats, and not all trends are equally significant. Typically, they fall into three categories: those with absolute validity, those that either help or hinder, and those without any substantial value or influence on arguments. A single trend on its own has limited usefulness, but when relevant trends are associated or aggregated, they become valuable. Trends can eliminate the three persistent saboteurs of betting: randomness, intuition, and hype.

The first race at the Cheltenham Festival is the Supreme Novices' Hurdle and we look at our trends for this race and walk our way through it.

• 20/20: Foaled between March & May (100%)
• 20/20: Between 2-7 runs that season (100%)
• 20/20: Won over hurdles previously (100%)
• 17/17: Rested at least 16 days (100%)
• 17/17: Won at 2m - 2m1f (100%)
• 13/13: At least 2 previous wins over 15-17 furlongs (100%)

We note the last 20 winners had been foaled between March and May. Is it a coincidence not one of the last 20 winners had been foaled in February? We cannot be sure, but given this statistic would the reader bet on a horse foaled in February?

The last 20 winners had between 2-7 runs that season, meaning not one succeeded with just one run under its belt. This trend infers even the best horse needs to be fully fit to win. QUESTION: If the favourite was foaled in February and won his only race impressively on the bit by 15l would the reader take 5/2, 7/2 or 9/2? What price would the reader take, in context, there is always a price that becomes perceived value irrespective of the trends.

The trends confirm all winners in the last 20 years won over hurdles previously, a trend impossible to argue with. Punditry often uses the phrase 'hitting the bar' but for non-handicap Cheltenham Championship Races there is only winning form.

 Expecting a horse to back up in less than 16 days appears unwise regardless of its constitution or form. Overcoming a large field of well-prepared and robust opponents, trained by top National Hunt trainers specifically for this race, is unlikely to succeed without near-perfect preparation.

 Trends 5 and 6 are self-explanatory. Rest assured, there will be strong contenders in this race that have not matched these statistics, significantly reducing their chances of winning. It is likely the subsequent seven trends that will unlock the secret to predicting the winner of the Supreme Novices' Hurdle.

19/20: Sent off no bigger than 25/1 (95%)
19/20: Won at least a Class 3 contest (95%)
19/20: Contested at least a Class 2 race (95%)
19/20: In first 3 last time out (95%)
16/17: Ran 2-4 times since October (94%)
16/17: Ran within the last 60 days (94%)
16/17: Ran 2-5 times over hurdles (94%)

An outsider priced 28/1 or bigger winning this race is mathematically possible, albeit highly improbable. Trends indicate that the victor likely competed in at least a Class 2 race and secured a win in a Class 3 race, and also finished within the top three in its last outing. From this data, we can assert with some confidence that the winner will have demonstrated a proven class.

Our statistics for this race are compelling and demand attention. The top 6 trends demonstrate a recurrence factor of 107 out of 107, equating to 100%, while the top 13 trends have a recurrence factor of 231 out of 238, or 97.06%. These percentages are indisputable and serve as our benchmark for next year's race.

Do we need to broaden our information to assist in determining the winner of this specific race?

• 11/12 winners of this race are 5 or 6yos (92%), all bar 7 winners since 1972 have fitted into that age bracket. 
• 11/12 winners had at least 1 previous win in a Grade 1-3 race (92%), giving an aggregation of 253/262 for a recurrence rate of 96.56%.

At the next festival we confidently predict the winner of the Supreme Novices' Hurdle can be found from this aggregation and these clean 15 racing trends.

What constitutes an unclean trend? Many such trends occupy substantial column space, thereby diverting the bettor's attention. Does the subsequent 12-line information truly contribute compared to our relevant list?

• 10/12: Raced in the last 66 days (83%)
• 10/12: Top 3 in the betting (83%)
• 17/25: Allocated an Official Rating (68%)
• 14/25: Trained in Ireland (56%)
• 11/25: Trained in Great Britain (44%)
• 5/12: At least 1 previous run at Cheltenham (42%)
• 5/12: Ran next in the Champion Novice Punchestown Hurdle (42%)
• 4/12: Winning favourites or joint favourites (33%)
• 3/12: Ran next in Fighting Fifth Hurdle Newcastle (25%)
• 2/12: At least 1 previous win at Cheltenham (17%)
• 0/20: No winners bigger than 40/1 (0%)
• 0/20: No Swedish or Congo Basin trained winners (0%)

Racing TV are one of the more serious outlets, but we look at their advice regarding the market. There is information here that some might enjoy reading, but it will not, cannot help the reader find next year's winner, we quote:

• Appreciate It (8/11) struck at a short price in 2021, while Constitution Hill was sent off the 9/4 joint-favourites in 2022 and was the fourth favourite to have won in the past 15 renewals
• Only a couple of those 15 winners were sent off at 12/1 or bigger
• The longest-priced winner was Arctic Kinsman at 50/1 in 1994
• While the 2007 victor Ebaziyan is one of two 40/1 shots to have scored
• The shortest-priced winners at 4/9 were Tsaoko in 1950 and Flyingbolt in 1964
• Favourites and joint favourites have been successful 12 times in the 50 runnings since 1972

While the historical context is accurate, its relevance to predicting the 2025 winner is questionable. Consider whether this information is beneficial or obstructive, clarifying or confusing. The details of Tsaoko in 1950, including the trainer and jockey, may be forgotten by many. With no disrespect intended towards the horse's capabilities, such information holds little significance in discussions about the Supreme Novices' Hurdle 2025.

This is the clutter we were discussing earlier! None of these trends provide any advancement or significant argument weight in determining the winner.

**

At the start of the chapter, we discussed bias and its potential to contaminate pure information. Picture a race for 2yo featuring six runners, each trained by a different individual (their national averages are indicated in parentheses). The trainers of these young horses are:

• Sir Michael Stoute (19%)
• James Fanshawe (15%)
• Karl Burke (14%)
• John Quinn (12%)
• Jane Chapple-Hyam (11%)
• Michael Appleby (11%).

We ask the reader for their initial assessment in finding the winner.

We now reveal the number of their 2yo winners and strike rates for the current year (up to 3 November 2023) and ask the reader did they expect these numbers:

• Karl Burke: 60-281 for 22% (+5.39)
• John Quinn: 10-62 for 16% (+27.20)
• Jane Chapple-Hyam: 7-46 for 15% (+14.36)
• Michael Appleby: 6-22 for 27% (+19.50)
• James Fanshawe: 4-41 for 10% (-18.13)
• Sir Michael Stoute: 2-29 for 7% (-20.00)

Be honest, how many readers expected to see the above figures? Bearing in mind the 2yos numbered above will be the classic generation next year. Who would have thought Stoute would have trained just 2 juvenile winners this year? Burke has trained 58 more 2yo winners! Michael Appleby is operating at 27% with his 2yos compared to Stoute's 7%. By the way the sample size of last pairing are similar, 22 versus 29. 

Honestly now, how many readers anticipated the figures mentioned? Considering the 2yos will be the classic generation next year, it's surprising to note that Stoute has trained only two juvenile winners this year. In contrast, Burke has trained 58 more 2yo winners! Michael Appleby's operation stands at 27% success with his 2yos, compared to Stoute's 7%. Additionally, the sample sizes for the last comparison are similar, with 22 for one and 29 for the other.

Let's look at another 6-runner race. The trainers are:

• J & T Gosden (21%)
• Saeed bin Suroor (20%)
• George Boughey (17%)
• Gary Moore (12%)
• Richard Fahey (11%)
• Tim Easterby (9%)

The reader has been alerted, yet the numbers will continue to astonish!

• Richard Fahey: 33-219 for 15% (-76.87)
• George Boughey: 22-151 for 15% (-61.81)
• J & T Gosden: 11-80 for 14% (-27.82)
• Tim Easterby: 7-168 for 4% (-100.13)
• Saeed bin Suroor: 4-15 for 27% (+5.15)
• Gary Moore: 0-19 for 0% (-19.00)

Even the most informed bettor may not have access to this pristine information; personal biases could have tainted their judgment. These numbers are crucial; they embody facts, free from opinion. Would one opt to back a Gary Moore 2yo runner, or perhaps a Tim Easterby 2yo runner? Few may be cognisant of the Gosden's 2yo statistics, which might raise concerns for the upcoming major prizes. It's possible that the stable has a set of late bloomers, which appears to be a necessity.

 The aim of this exercise is to illustrate how easily clean and cluttered information can be combined, and how inherent biases may result in misinformation. The examples given above are just a few distinct cases.

 Regarding clean data, our Racecourse Templates stand out as an exceptional and pertinent resource, and we hold their content in high regard. The figures presented are accurate and form a crucial part of our betting strategy. We believe this approach meets our members' expectations and constitutes the cornerstone of The Racing Horse.

***