Profitable Horse Racing Betting System - Racing Post Tipping Service Selections on the All Weather?

I have been contemplating the question of whether it is possible to develop a successful betting strategy based on following the selections of one or more the four main Racing Post tipping services. 

Namely Spotlight, Racing Post Ratings, Topspeed, or Postdata

If betting strategy and systems are of general interest please visit this OLBG betting school article.        

I was finally galvanised into action by a couple of triggers.

The first of which was a recent thread on the OLBG Horse Racing discussion forum entitled "Racing Post Spotlights, Timeform Verdicts, and At The Races Verdicts have confused punters so much."

After reading this thread I thought that it would be useful to have at least some empirical evidence to either support or refute the services.

The second trigger was a remark made in my local betting shop, which I by chance overheard when one of the regulars stated that a specific horse must have a great chance of winning as it had been tipped by all four of the Racing Post tipsters, which made me wonder whether the gentleman had any proof to support his comment.

I, therefore, collected data in respect of all selections made by the aforementioned Racing Post tipping services at all-weather race meetings for the 2 week period from Tuesday, 29 November to Monday, 12 December.

I will be the first to admit that the sample size of around 140 races is not overly extensive and that the results may well prove to be suspect, 

However, it does cover 18 race meetings across all 7 of the all-weather tracks in the UK and Ireland and should at least provide a reasonable snapshot from which some conclusions can be drawn 

I can also hopefully identify a few areas for further analysis.

How The Tipping Services Work

For any reader who is not conversant with the four main tipping services that are provided by the Racing Post, I will attempt to provide a brief explanation, as follows:

Spotlight (SL)

The Spotlight Verdicts appear at the foot of each race card and provide a brief summary of the likely main contestants, plus a selection for each race and are therefore highly visible to readers of the Racing Post.

Spotlights are compiled by a team of Racing Post journalists who are also responsible for providing a brief statement regarding the form, plus any additional pointers which suggest that the horse in question is likely to run well, or poorly for each runner in the race, which is then distilled into the final verdict summary.

The fact that the comments and verdicts are produced by a team of journalists introduces an element of inconsistency into the quality of the analysis on a race by race basis, as although a specific author will be wholly responsible for each race, they may not have responsibility for every race scheduled to be run at the track during the meeting.

It is also interesting to note that unlike the sister tipping services, Racing Post Ratings and Postdata, the overall performance of the Spotlight selections is not included in the Racing Post Press Challenge Table and as far as I am aware is therefore not made available for scrutiny.

Racing Post Ratings (RR)

This is a handicapping service that provides a rating for almost every runner in races that are run in the UK and Ireland, plus selected overseas events.

The service is based on a similar methodology to that used by the Official Handicappers in both the UK and Ireland, as it is primarily based on weight carried, finishing position and the number of lengths a horse either wins by, or is beaten by in each race.

There is a general lack of transparency with regard to how the master Racing Post Ratings are turned into the figures that appear on the far right of the race card for each runner in a race, although it is common knowledge that they are adjusted to take into account the weight to be carried by the horse in the race, 

However as no narrative accompanies the final ratings, it is almost impossible to understand the impact of age and sex allowances, where appropriate, or the reasoning for choosing a selection when there appears to be two, or more runners who have been allocated joint highest ratings.

There is also no indication as to whether it is likely that the selection will be capable of producing the rating under the prevailing race conditions.

However, it should be noted that the Racing Post Rating tipping service is included in the Press Challenge table and is currently in top position for the whole of 2016 with a strike rate of 27% and an ROI of 93.84%, which is almost 3% better than the nearest challenger.

Topspeed (TS)

This is another handicapping service that provides a speed rating for almost every runner in races that are run in the UK and Ireland, plus selected overseas events.

Unlike Racing Post Ratings, Topspeed figures are based on the time taken for the winner to complete a race, plus the distance beaten for runners who followed the winner home.

These figures are adjusted for weight carried, age of runner, the speed of the track during the race meeting and various other criteria, which provides a final figure that can be compared in the future with races held on different days at other race meetings over various race distances.

As with Racing Post Ratings, there is no accompanying narrative to support Topspeed selections, so there is a similar lack of transparency, whilst Topspeed ratings do not appear on the main race card in the Racing Post, although they are provided in a separate table which is provided for each race meeting.

Again, there is also no indication as to whether it is likely that the selection will be capable of producing the rating under the prevailing race conditions.

Unlike Racing Post Ratings, the overall performance of Topspeed selections is not included within the Press Challenge Table and is therefore as far as I am aware not available for scrutiny.

Postdata (PD)

This is a tipping service that is provided for all races in the UK and Ireland and is based on the assessment of various criteria relating to each participant in a race, as follows:

• Trainer Form
• Going (based on the latest report from the course)
• Race Distance
• Course Form
• Draw (Flat races only)
• Ability
• Recent Form
• Group Race Entries

Positives for each runner in respect of each runner are shown by a number of ticks, whilst negatives are indicated by a cross against the appropriate criteria, plus question marks and dashes are also shown where there is insufficient data to determine whether the runner meets, or fails specific criteria.

This information does not appear on the main race card but is published in a separate table on a race by race basis, which provides a fairly detailed assessment of the chance of each runner based on the above criteria.

The weighting applied to each of the criteria is not published, so it is not easy to understand the exact reasoning for Postdata selecting one runner over another when they appear fairly closely matched based on the overall number of ticks they have been allotted.

However, it should be noted that the Postdata tipping service is included in the Press Challenge table and is currently in ninth position from 10 participants for the whole of 2016 with a strike rate of 23% and a ROI of 87.10%, 

These figures are almost 7% below the table leader, which is Racing Post Ratings. 

Results

The following tables provide the results for the 4 main Racing Post tipping services during the 2 week sample period, which have been split between selections where just one service has tipped a runner and where a horse has been chosen by two or more of the tipping services.

Spotlight (SL)

The Spotlight selections have fared reasonably well in terms of strike rate bearing in mind that the competitive nature of the all-weather racing during the 2 week sample period.

However, the selections appear to be overbet, which is likely due to the prominent position of the Spotlight Verdicts at the foot of each Racing Post race card, which means that many punters who have not assessed the race in great detail will follow the selection, whilst more savvy racing enthusiasts who have studied the race may still be unconsciously swayed by the comments for each horse that contests the race and/or the final summary.

It is interesting that the performance improves when a Spotlight selection coincides with the chosen runner of at least one other Racing Post tipping service, albeit the resultant ROI is lower, which again suggests that the Racing Post selections have a significant impact on the betting market.

Perhaps backing the Spotlight selections at early odds with BOG soon after the Racing Post is published on line may provide an improved return, although I doubt that it would be possible to develop a profitable betting strategy using Spotlight selections alone based on this evidence.

Racing Post Ratings (RR)

The results for the Racing Post Ratings selections are disappointing bearing in mind the overall performance of the service throughout 2016 and appears to add weight to my previous comment that the all weather racing during the sample period was fairly competitive.

An alternative theory is that basing selections on just the top rated runner in each race is not a particularly effective methodology for finding winners on the all weather, which is partly vindicated by the improved strike rate that was achieved when the Racing Post Rating selection coincided with that of at least one other tipster.

I suspect that both of the above theories had an impact on the overall results during the sample period, in which case there may be some opportunities to identify worthwhile betting strategies using RPR data in National Hunt races, in addition to the system that I highlighted in an earlier blog, which can be accessed via the following link:

Profitable Horse Racing Betting System - Racing Post Ratings Improvers

Topspeed (TS)

If I was disappointed with the results of the Racing Post Rating selections, my reaction to the Topspeed performance is complete and utter shock.

I have been a long term devotee of the use of speed ratings to assist with the selection of profitable wagers in all weather races.

For many years I maintained basic speed ratings, which I only gave up about 18 months ago, due to the fact that the amount of work required was proving too onerous when compared against the moderate profit that they were generating.

However, the Topspeed model is far more sophisticated and I fully expected that it would produce reasonable results during the sample period.

 Instead, the overall performance of the Topspeed selections proved to be exceptionally poor, especially when the horse was chosen by only this tipping service, as a strike rate of below 5% would almost certainly have been bettered by a novice punter using the tried and trusted ‘pin sticker' methodology for selecting a wager in each race.

As mentioned in the previous section, the all-weather races did appear to be fairly competitive and as previously mentioned I have reservations over the use of just a rating to identify selections on the all-weather, which is again validated by the vastly improved performance of Topspeed when at least one of the other Racing Post tipsters had selected the same runner, may offer partial mitigation.

However, if these results are typical of the overall performance of Topspeed on the all-weather, there appears to be something fundamentally wrong, either with the model used to calculate the speed ratings or more likely with the methodology for choosing the selections.

In my opinion, Racing Post management should seriously consider initiating an in-depth review of this tipping service for the all-weather, as based on this admittedly limited analysis there is a real danger that it is causing punters who take heed of Topspeed's selections to suffer significant losses, especially as the overall performance is not advertised within the Press Challenge table.

Postdata (PD)

Postdata has recorded the best ROI during the sample period, which I guess isn't a major surprise, as the analysis is based multiple criteria, rather than just a simple rating, whilst the selections are almost hidden away, which perhaps reduces the likelihood of the horse being overbet, especially when Postdata is the only tipster to have selected it.

In fact, Postdata's sole selections have recorded a reasonable profit during the sample period and they have significantly outperformed the overall ROI figure for 2016 as seen in the Racing Post Press Challenge table, which suggests it may be possible to develop a profitable betting strategy abased on Postdata's all-weather selections. 

Selections By More Than One Service

During the data collection process, I kept records of all runners that were selected by more than one of the Racing Post tipping services, for which the following results table makes interesting reading:

It should be noted that there were no instances of the same selection being made by Spotlight, Racing Post Ratings, and Topspeed during the sample period.

Most of the sample sizes for the various combinations listed above are far too small to be able to draw even tentative inferences, it is interesting to note that 3 of the 10 combinations achieved a profit and that in all instances the combination included at least one rating only service, plus either Spotlight or Postdata which consider multiple criteria.

Finally, horses that were selected by all four of the Racing Post tipping services failed to produce a single winner from 8 selections, of which 6 were sent off as favourite, whilst none of them started at odds greater than 3/1. 

Conclusions

Based on the relatively small sample size, it is only possible to make tentative conclusions based on these results, however, my thoughts in respect of the 3 questions that I raised at the beginning of this blog are as follows: 

At this stage, the sole selections of Postdata appear to offer the best chance to do so, albeit the strike rate of around 20% is lower than I would normally consider for a betting strategy. 

Further analysis will be required to identify further filters, such as track, type of race, and probably most importantly which assessment criteria are of most importance for finding value winners. 

It may also be possible to identify additional options for strategies, including Spotlight selections that are also supported by one of the ratings based services. 

Perversely, it may also be possible to develop a system based on Topspeed data (perhaps not selections) if a few additional selection criteria are applied. 

Such as ensuring that the Topspeed rating relates to course form (or at least an effort on the same brand of synthetic surface), plus perhaps draw and pace bias data, which was similar to the methodology that I used when compiling my speed ratings. 

Spotlight performed best when the selection was also tipped by one of the ratings related services (Racing Post Ratings, or Topspeed).

There is little doubt in my mind that value is significantly impacted by the fact that these selections are conspicuously reported at the foot of the race card, which suggests that it is important for punters considering to place a bet on a Spotlight selection to strike the wager early at best available odds, with a bookmaker who is offering a best odds guarantee concession. 

Clearly, this may just have been a statistical glitch, but it does put a dent in the statement that I overheard in my local betting shop and the ongoing performance of these well-fancied runners is probably worth further investigation. 

The fact that 6 of the 8 selections were sent off as favourite and none of them started at odds greater than 3/1, suggests that if similar results occur on a frequent basis, there may be scope to develop a profitable laying strategy.

My Thoughts

In line with the majority of tipping services, the Racing Post is quick to highlight when one of it's betting experts, or tipsters has achieved a good result and I will be the first to admit that a praiseworthy performance should be celebrated.

These are rather infrequent occurrences and there is a general lack of information regarding the day to day performance of the tipping services, which could have a significant impact on the wealth of Racing Post readers.

I would suggest that the Racing Post should provide daily statistics on the performance of their main experts and tipping services in a similar format as they currently report Trainer and Jockey form.

In my view it should not prove too onerous for the Racing Post to publish daily data relating to each tipsters performance, as follows:

• Yesterday's Results
• Fortnightly Results
• Annual Results

With each of these 3 metrics being split by race type:

• Flat Turf
• All Weather
• National Hunt

Plus it would also be useful for punters to view each tipsters stats at each racecourse over the past 12 months.

This improved transparency would at least enable punters to consider whether it is appropriate to follow the advice of the tipster under various circumstances and would provide a unique and valuable service to punters, who are paying a not insignificant amount of money on a daily basis to read the publication.

I hope that readers have found this analysis of interest and as usual, I would welcome any comments and feedback, especially if readers have any similar ideas/strategies that they are happy to share.

Also, if you have enjoyed this blog, please feel free to share the link on social media, with your friends and contacts who are interested in horse racing.