Regular postings from ‘Spy’…

Spy is Horse Racing Pro’s Resident Racing Journalist. He’s an ex odds compiler with over 20 years experience working or one of the big firms and has a wealth of racing knowledge which he loves to share in a weekly, often mildly provocative chat! …

How Was It For You?

Hindsight is something we can either learn from or deny. Sometimes denial is the easier option. After all, life is a constant learning process – it becomes tiresome; there is a limit to how much we wish to learn.

However, if wishing to progress as individuals it is necessary to scrutinise our actions, if only to see how we can avoid making the same mistakes next time.

The thing with life is that we don’t always accord the appropriate timescale to deliberate over important decisions. Sometimes we just grab an idea out of thin air and run with it. That way it sometimes works, just as often it will blow up like a bag of wind.

Betting on horses means playing the percentages

As with life, racing/betting is a percentage game. The percentages are important because they are stacked against us before we start. By design we are expected to lose. The only way we can reverse that is to tilt the percentages in our favour, and we only do that with careful and precise thought. The trouble is, betting is a complex business. Unlike a conventional test of one’s ability, it requires the backer to invest in his judgement. Unless we literally put our money where our mouths are, there are no prizes for being right. Working through a race and solving it in theory is only part of the process. Once achieved, to whatever level, the next decision is how to react, and that can be the hardest decision of all. To bet or not to bet – that is the question …

I guess we have all experienced this. Sometimes we reach a perfectly sound solution to a problem on paper, only to discover the problem is bigger than the solution.

In life some problems have to be tackled – a reaction is needed: The daughter brings home a goon of a boyfriend, the wife’s infidelity, to move house or not to move house – as participants in the game of life, we cannot always be inactive.

Aspire to a Professional Gambling Mindset

When gambling, although it is not a good idea to cultivate a ‘no-play’ mindset, we do have to ask some questions of our logic before pressing the betting button.

When striking a losing bet, the unanimous reaction from most gamblers is to apportion blame. This means in their eyes it is often the fault of the jockey, trainer, the watering system, the vagaries of the draw, or the bloody horse itself! It is rarely the fault of the person placing the bet. That’s okay, if you want to live in cloud cuckoo land, but if you want to improve your chances of getting it right next time, on occasion it is advisable to look inward.

So how did I do last week (a week well documented on this website) and what can I, and possibly readers, learn from our suggested bets.

Let’s go back in time to last Tuesday – Day One of the York Ebor meeting and take as unbiased and critical look as possible.

Not all races were reviewed in advance, only those I thought presented betting possibilities.

I correctly swerved the Acomb; however, my rationale soon hit the buffers. I thought out of the six that went to post there were four serious runners. This assessment did not include the winner. After a promising winning appearance at Newbury, First Flight was a Notebook horse. I admit to being in two minds before making him such as I thought the race he won after a slow start was (as has been proved) a poor one. Even so, I included what was a borderline prospect and paid the penalty when witnessing him run no race at all. The only thing I got right here was to leave the Acomb alone. I suspect the best horse [The Grey Gatsby] finished second.

Strong Bet Telescope wins

I was vindicated in correctly identifying Telescope as a strong bet in the Voltigeur, despite many sceptics wishing to lay the horse.

Glory was short-lived as I made the decision to be with Toronado in the Juddmonte International from the heart rather than the head. Dick Hern – a man that always consulted brain before engaging mouth – once said great horses have great constitutions. That is a piece of wisdom worth remembering. The International was dominated by tough, battle-hardened horses in the shape of Declaration Of War, Trading Leather and Al Kazeem. They don’t give Group 1s away and, sadly, on evidence to hand, Toronado is developing into an excuse horse – at least as far as punters are concerned. For those prepared to read it, the signpost was in place.

Broxbourne a 6/1 Beauty!

Broxbourne proved a good decision on several fronts when winning the two-mile handicap from what looked like an impossible position. She was a fair spot for the Notebook. It wasn’t difficult to pinpoint her as unlucky at Ascot, but that is not always what nominating Notebook horses is about. We are not simply looking for unlucky horses (the formbook is full of them), more to the point, we are in search of a horse that is likely to overturn this bad luck next time it runs. To that end, it helps if there is another component they can draw upon. In this case, Broxbourne is a lazy type that will pull out all the stops when she has to and then throttle back, making it difficult for the handicapper to assess her correctly. She also is a genuine long-distance racehorse, which stands her in good stead in these sorts of events. Even mentioning Suraj in the context of this race was a bad idea. He is temperamental, moody and unwilling. Horses such as he are a waste of time from a betting perspective.

Day One showed a profit with only a chink or two revealed in the reasoning. Although, note to myself: learn the Toronado lesson! Had there been no Telescope (as it turned out a wasted winner), I would have had a bad day.

I allowed Day Two to become clouded as I felt the card, littered as it was by four races confined to fillies, was ultra-tricky. Consequently, determined not to fall into any traps, I overlooked the obvious.

In the Lowther, I was probably a bit too quick to dismiss Lucky Kristale on account of her penalty. But I decided not to bet in the event – would not have backed her even if she had whispered in my ear – so there was no harm done.

Wentworth was a selection rather than a bet in the Class 2 Handicap full of exposed horses – the trend at this time of year. Of course he didn’t run, but what was I doing even mentioning a ghost horse like Validus in my summing up?

The Yorkshire Oaks revealed a couple of my weaknesses. Stubbornness meant I missed a trick with The Fugue. The ground swung in her favour and the stable were very confident. Even so, I could not bring myself to waver from one of my original objections to her: namely, that she had failed to win over the trip after three attempts. This was a weak Group 1 and she fully justified stable confidence at a backable price – presumably, because, like me, there were those that questioned her effectiveness at the trip. I knew I was wrong in sitting the race out before it started, but by this time I was concerned that if I backed against my original judgement, I would be spitting blood if she lost. That is a poor reason to decline a perfectly feasible bet!

It was fair enough to nominate Star Lahib in the Galtres as her claims were there for all to see. Uncomplicated and a real trier, she was guaranteed to run her race, but the suspicion was she was not quite good enough. So it proved, but sometimes horses like her are preferable to those that look good in their maidens but have it to prove. I was against Say on grounds of stamina. I got away with it but maybe for the wrong reasons.

I survived Day Two intact, but no prizes for missing an obvious winner in The Fugue.

Day Three: Having correctly assessed the Lonsdale Cup as resting between Ahzeemah and Simenon, I should have come out of the race on the right side. Once again, I hung back mainly because I could see Caucus puncturing my reasoning. No race is absolutely cut and dried. I had it narrowed down sufficiently well and should have taken the chance and backed one of the two preferred small, whilst covering on the other.

Pavlosk was a lazy tip in the Strensall Stakes. She was an eye-catcher at Goodwood. The trip and ground were now in her favour but this represented a step up in grade. With everyone and his dog clamouring to back her, common sense should have kicked in. She is probably worth another chance as she pulled much too hard early and was a spent force early in the straight.

Shea Shea may have been beaten in the Nunthorpe, but represented value and should have been backed. I narrowed the event down to a three-horse affair and allowed the vagaries of the draw and the ground to stand in my way. My betting record shows I was right not to play, but I contend I was wrong.

I did not back Notebook horse Golden Town in the Convivial because of prejudice against Godolphin – who appear to have lost the plot. Throwing money at this or any other enterprise won’t allow you to crack it, even if your funds are unlimited. To me, that is Godolphin’s present stance. After the appalling run of First Flight (a horse they admitted should not have run) I was not prepared to see another high-profile horse of theirs sink into the Knavesmire. It was a warm maiden, and to a degree, if you are not comfortable with a bet, you should leave it so I feel justified.

Day Three was a loss

Day Three was a losing one. I backed Pavlosk and left the trading floor with dust in my throat.

Day Four: I identified three bets at York and did back them all to varying degrees. Hawk High was, to my mind, a perfectly reasonable form selection in the handicap. As an exposed horse, the handicapper had presented him with a chance, but as an exposed contender against potentially better opposition, although a value alternative, it was always a tall order. Nevertheless, at 16/1, I felt a small bet was justified and he did not run badly.

I suppose Parbold was a fair enough selection in the Gimcrack. He ran about as well as could be expected. With a bit of luck (ie if Astaire and Wilshire Boulevard hadn’t turned up) he would have won. It was always going to be difficult but I felt he had a real chance of winning, particularly after his run at Goodwood, which suggested he would do better on a more conventional track.

But, to an extent I erred here. I felt I had identified a real betting prospect in Tiger Cliff in the Ebor. Greed, or an attempt to reduce stakes, meant I was looking for a couple of juicy-priced horses to accompany him in a miracle multiple. What I should have done was to concentrate on just backing my best bet of the day and having throwaway bets on the other two. As it was, I staked too much on the supporting act.

Best Bet Tiger Cliff wins 7/1 to 5/1!

Tiger Cliff of course justified my comments and was a big result for me. He was backed at all rates down from 7/1 to 5/1; however, that is slightly misleading as there were non-runners to take into account.

Looking back on the week in hard print, it seems a lot better now than it did at the time. But committing my record to print means I can identify a couple of serious lessons that should be learned. This is not an attempt to beat myself up – none of us is perfect. It does pay though to be aware of our shortcomings.

In my case, I often gravitate to the flashy and sexy horses (Toronado) at the expense of the solid alternatives (The Fugue). At times, I am also an immovable object.

If I could guarantee every week would yield the same results as York, I could readily overlook my faults. As I can’t make that guarantee, I would do well to learn from this exercise. Without such naked exposure, my flaws may have been overlooked, leaving them free to rear their ugly heads next time!