Fat Jockey Podcast - Cheltenham 2023 - 'Book Approach'

[Kevloaf]

Hello


Had a planned call with Spectre today that's ended up as as unplanned podcast (or 5!)


First one (below) is just a little bit of a chat around our approaches, specifically book building, and if you're interested in this at all, then feel free to watch and ask any questions or comment in here or on YT ... it's fairly niche in the grand scheme of things and definitely won't be for everyone... but what is!


We then recorded one short pod for each day, just about what key horses would be making up books if starting now and how we'll approach them personally, which I'll upload over the next 4 days.... again, none of it was planned so it's pretty raw (which let's face it, it always is anyway) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb86WPIdgwo

We have planned to do a 'Season Preview' kind of podcast that we'll record this week, that won't be centred around 'books', which will be out at some point next week. It'll be jono, Paul and I waffling for ages in a likely very long chat with no real purpose, just for your listening pleasure




Day 1 -
An initial look at horses that we have / will be adding ante post for Cheltenham 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJHkNgoo4f0

Day 2 - Books - Starting points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLJIDt29h0Q

Day 3 - Books - Starting points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfhwTkn_oo4

Day 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI35QROAqe8

[Spectre]

As Kev says, book building isn't for everyone, but I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has.

Hopefully the podcasts for the four individual days will throw out a few names you might not have heard of or considered yet, and I'm sure you'll hear plenty of familiar ones too.

And as always your feedback is appreciated, whether it be good or bad.

[That Horse]

Outside of the Arkle, what other races are high on the list for early book building? I know you'll end up having a book on every race but just wondered how you rank the other races to build your book from a year out, as I could imagine it might be difficult doing a book for one of the novice hurdles compared to the likes of the Arkle.

I'm not a book builder but I guess my interest would be if there are two or three races that cut up like the Arkle field usually does, then it would seem sensible to do some multiples across those races if that makes sense?

[Kevloaf]

Outside of the Arkle, what other races are high on the list for early book building? I know you'll end up having a book on every race but just wondered how you rank the other races to build your book from a year out, as I could imagine it might be difficult doing a book for one of the novice hurdles compared to the likes of the Arkle.

I'm not a book builder but I guess my interest would be if there are two or three races that cut up like the Arkle field usually does, then it would seem sensible to do some multiples across those races if that makes sense?

1. National Hunt Chase (select amount of jockeys and connections easier to whittle down than most races)
2. Mares Chase (just a small pool to have to work through)
3. Champion Chase (easiest of the Championship Races.... most likely small field of the lot with specific trials and 'types')

They're pretty easy to narrow down, and similarly Triumph can be now the Boodles is there... but a lot of horses to sift through as unknowns...

Essentially, it's anything where you feel there will be a small and select field... Turners and Browns can be too...


Completely agree, Supreme and Ballymore are incredibly hard, and the Mares Novice Hurdle can be..... Albert Bartlett the easiest of the four, although that's never usually a small field.... so definitely not easy.

[Spectre]

I think that's pretty much captured it Kev. All of the Novice Chases tend to be (only Arkle this early though), and the open Championship races too, as you can fairly early predict what's going to turn up on the day with any kind of chance, and you just have to add in the odd horse when the season throws out its curve balls. The Stayers can often be the exception to the rule, but it would be fairly easy to get started with a book right now, even if you have to consider some current unknown players.

The key is to have target returns for each race and to adjust staking on your portfolio as you make additions as the season progresses. And also don't get stuck in your thinking, and be flexible. if something can be a genuine contender, and it's price is likely to shorten on an entry or a performance just add it. Don't think twice about it. You can cash out or use the Exchange to offload, lock in a profit, or limit losses. Injuries happen and you do get caught, but by covering multiple races, you have a book within a book, and all of your books together provide mitigation against any races going wrong.

[robith]

Is there a science to calculating what return is acceptable? I always work to a base starting point of at least 20 points return, then later on calcualting profitability, but there must be a smarter technique then me thinking "this is the minimum amount I'd be happy seeing pop up on screen"

[HoldenTheReins]

What is the maximum amount of horses you'd have per race? Say 3-5 for an example where if any of them win you are in profit, what is the average point return you'll be looking at?

If you were starting the book today would you be taking the crap prices of say like Facile Vega for the Supreme or Constitution Hill for the Champion Hurdle, using 'roll ups' or just avoid race?

If you are going to make a book for those races you'd want them on side for profit, right?

[Lobos]

Maximum I'd have per race is 3/4 horses giving me on average 20pt profit on each horse. Works for me .

[Lobos]

Is there a science to calculating what return is acceptable? I always work to a base starting point of at least 20 points return, then later on calcualting profitability, but there must be a smarter technique then me thinking "this is the minimum amount I'd be happy seeing pop up on screen"

I don't think there is a smarter technique. It's what works for you. Don't change it.

[Clinker]

Hello


Had a planned call with Spectre today that's ended up as as unplanned podcast (or 5!)


First one (below) is just a little bit of a chat around our approaches, specifically book building, and if you're interested in this at all, then feel free to watch and ask any questions or comment in here or on YT ... it's fairly niche in the grand scheme of things and definitely won't be for everyone... but what is!


We then recorded one short pod for each day, just about what key horses would be making up books if starting now and how we'll approach them personally, which I'll upload over the next 4 days.... again, none of it was planned so it's pretty raw (which let's face it, it always is anyway) ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb86WPIdgwo

We have planned to do a 'Season Preview' kind of podcast that we'll record this week, that won't be centred around 'books', which will be out at some point next week. It'll be jono, Paul and I waffling for ages in a likely very long chat with no real purpose, just for your listening pleasure

Really enjoyed this. Very informative and interesting.

[Clinker]

In the podcast you talk about starting on the Saturday post festival. For this, im assuming, you need to understand how/why horses progress from winning or doing well in one race which then sees them naturally progress to a different race the following year. Are you able to share your thoughts on the "normal" route horses in certain routes take, for example a supreme horse for year 2 would go to arkle for example. Apologies for any confusion still learning and finding a way to explain things.

[Kevloaf]

In the podcast you talk about starting on the Saturday post festival. For this, im assuming, you need to understand how/why horses progress from winning or doing well in one race which then sees them naturally progress to a different race the following year. Are you able to share your thoughts on the "normal" route horses in certain routes take, for example a supreme horse for year 2 would go to arkle for example. Apologies for any confusion still learning and finding a way to explain things.

One for Paul rather than me but my two penneth... yeah, there are no set in stone progressions - it's often important to listen to trainers through the season too, as sometimes they'll say things like "he's a big rangy type" or "will be better over fences" which is then obvious that they're much more likely to go novice chasing than have a crack at a Champion Hurdle...

Essentially, if you don't win a Supreme, Ballymore or Triumph, you're much more likely to go novice chasing in my opinion... hardly any horses are bought / trained for a Stayers Hurdle in mind.

[Kevloaf]

Is there a science to calculating what return is acceptable? I always work to a base starting point of at least 20 points return, then later on calcualting profitability, but there must be a smarter technique then me thinking "this is the minimum amount I'd be happy seeing pop up on screen"

I try to work towards a profit per race, but that's so much harder to do until the actual final fields to know what each outcome would be, that I have to start with just 'return'

By the final fields, adjusting those results could mean laying, backing something else or 'topping up' even at shorter odds.... but at this stage it's just getting in the position to be able to do that...

I tend to leave a lot running based on previous years, so don't really 'hammer it home' if I'm 'right' in who I fancy the most... it's an area I may adjust this year though, a bit more of a 'go big or go home approach'.

[Kevloaf]

What is the maximum amount of horses you'd have per race? Say 3-5 for an example where if any of them win you are in profit, what is the average point return you'll be looking at?

If you were starting the book today would you be taking the crap prices of say like Facile Vega for the Supreme or Constitution Hill for the Champion Hurdle, using 'roll ups' or just avoid race?

If you are going to make a book for those races you'd want them on side for profit, right?

First question - I'd literally back the entire field if I could and it still worked financially... an example of it working would be Labaik's Supreme, when on the day of race the 'rags' are huge prices, extra places, all that funky stuff so you can cover the 'ridiculous' potential results... often they are literally out the back of the TV, but depending on how well you've picked the right horses, got on at better than SP and avoided injuries to your selections it can be a really comfy position.

It's very easy to get it wrong though in some races, the Supreme in particular I mentioned in the video being one that I can't see a book building angle in to at the moment without the use of a 'roll up'.... and ultimately, the roll ups rely on winning bets along the way, which if we all knew how to do would be great... we need more collaboration on this as Saxon Warrior mentioned in the YouTube comments!

...and yes, 100% you'd want the shorties in for profit... the most likely winners... it could mean just avoiding them for now, and hoping others shorten around to make it clearer nearer the time.... it's definitely not just a case of backing them all and claiming we've backed the winner, if a book can't be made, it can't be made and you're forced to go with other options..... this year looks tighter than I can recall this far out in the Supreme, QMCC and I wouldn't bother with the Ryanair this far out either...

Hope that answers - thanks for all the questions so far

[Hurricane fly]

I totally agree with Spectres view, the first week after the festival is now key to securing prices, you see the first cuts to horses within 72 hours of the final race.

Kev mentioned about how everyone will moan about horses being cut on entry, the reality is many horses are being trimmed almost every month over summer, the 8/1 you fancied in April is suddenly 5 or 6/1 for no real reason outside of a few quid in October. For example, GDM was 10/1 after the IGN, now 9/2 in places. An Tobar has gone from 25/1 into 12s for nothing more than a few positive mentions.

Yes this is a small number of horses but they are ones you invariably want on your side. I've slowly added bits and pieces over the last few months but if I had the bank to do so I could have probably closed up for summer and ensured I had the positions I wanted come May on prices that are probably not going to be seen again given that most will win at a canter on debut and be cut again so even a loss in race 2 only puts them half way back.

I instantly cringe when I see horses I like being mentioned on twitter because I know a price contraction will likely follow and a horse I thought I could build some FBs toward needs to be backed sooner than I'd like. However, this has been the case for probably the last 2 years, us moaning on here isn't going to change things so it's right to adapt.


I still can't bring myself to e/w backing unless I'm doubling with a non horse bet so the each way costs in as being free to me because of stake restraints. Again Spectre mentioned wanting the winner and the places and using the exchanges to lay off, if that wasn't an option and you only had a set amount e.g 15 points a race, would you see it as 7.5pt e/w on selections or spread the points win only?