Proven v Potential
In Cheltenham Man, I talk a little about how successful punting is part art and part science. We’re all familiar with the science: principally the form book, but other stuff, like watching race replays to spot things the form analysts have missed, and reading trainer comments, etc. To win at the punting game, you need to put in the hard yards; anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. As the saying goes, the harder you work, the luckier you get. But it’s the art side of things that ultimately separates the winners from the losers.
There are any number of people who know the form book inside and out; sometimes they also have great insight into sectional times, speed figures, and other factors such as breeding. Some of them are pundits you’ll be familiar with from podcasts and TV. But ask them to convert all that information and knowledge into probabilities, i.e. accurate prices for a race, and they sometimes flounder.
It’s not because they don’t have the brain cells. They clearly do. It’s because the process of converting all that information into accurate prices is something you either have or you don’t. That is to say, it’s an art, and like any art, it can’t really be taught. Experience can improve whatever natural talent you were blessed with, but it will only get you so far.
The topic is a bit of a hobby-horse of mine, because I was forced to address it when I wrote the book. I knew readers would want to know how I’d been successful, and it was something I’d never really had to think about – I just knew that what I did worked, not for all racing, but definitely for ante-post jump racing.
Part of the art side of things is psychology. How much do the intangibles influence your pricing decisions? I was thinking about this when looking at The Jukebox Man in the King George markets. I’ve laid the horse at around 6.0 (5/1) on the exchanges. That seems too short to me. I have it nearer 8/1. What’s going on? There’s been plenty matched on the market. There are clearly a lot of people who believe the horse has a better chance than I do.
Anyone backing The Jukebox Man probably needs the horse to improve by a stone to beat a really strong field. This is where psychology comes in. I believe there’s a part of our psyche that prefers potential to proven. When the next Pegasus bursts onto the scene, we all want to have skin in the game. At some level, it’s more satisfying than opposing it with what’s already accepted as the best horse in the race. That’s way too boring!
This is what appears to be at play here. Credit should always be given to an improving horse taking on horses whose form has plateaued, but it’s easy to get carried away and allow it to influence your betting. When Iroko won at Ascot, there was another surge of money. People saw Iroko’s win as a form boost for The Jukebox Man, further proof that we were looking at the next big thing. They conveniently overlook that Mr Hope Street, rated just 127, was only beaten 6l, receiving just 11lbs. The form is totally unreliable as a guide to the future because they crawled around, and TJM was given a soft lead. The course and distance form of his Kauto Star Novices’ Chase win, however, is a lot more reliable, but a two-length beating of Hyland isn’t going to cut it on Boxing Day.
Can he improve enough to win a King George on only his fourth chasing start? Of course he can, but it’s a big ask, especially as he’s unlikely to have his own way in front with Il Est Francais in the field. How will his jumping hold up when he’s not in front? Will he fully stay 3m at championship pace? Is Ben Pauling’s confidence in his horse getting into people’s heads?
He’s a fascinating runner and could easily be the next big thing in the chasing division. We’ll soon find out, but at 5/1, I believe potential has been given too much credit over proven. Opposing horses like The Jukebox Man in the King George doesn’t always bear fruit, but in the long run, it’s been a successful strategy, and as ever, it’s the long term that matters.