I PUT up a list of horses in June that were the beneficiaries of sectional upgrades for finishing fast against a pace bias, and I wanted to revisit that list with results and observations with a view to refining what is a very basic approach to future punting.

To recap, all four horses either won or were placed while producing notably fast final sectionals, and I used Proform’s new sectional tools to identify their highest final-furlong upgrades for such horses, combined with some bog-standard race reading to identify outliers.

Amathus

(Patrick Chamings - second at Leicester, 27/05)

Amathus was noted as being worth following over seven furlongs on fast ground at Class 6 level and has subsequently won a seven-furlong handicap at Salisbury. He was beaten twice prior to that, extended a lengthy losing run, but the first of those runs came on heavy ground and the other over a mile, highlighting the need for some parameters for when horses should be backed.

Results: Lost, Lost, Won 10/1 Salisbury

Burrito

(John & Thady Gosden - won at Newbury, 16/05)

The well-bred Burrito kept galloping despite being close to an overly strong pace when winning at Newbury and followed up in a York handicap in his next start, his only subsequent run. He is still progressing as he learns to race with more efficiency and remains one to keep on side.

Results: Won 9/5 York

Hickory

(Jamie Osborne - third in Whitsun Cup at Sandown, 29/0

Winner of the Victoria Cup on debut for Jamie Osborne, Hickory ran really well to be third at Sandown and was suggested as one to back each-way in handicaps back at Ascot. He has failed to win since, finishing down the field in a Racing League fixture on Thursday at Wolverhampton, but his only run at Ascot in the intervening period saw him hit the frame at an SP of 12/1.

Results: Lost, Lost, 3rd 12/1 Ascot, Lost

Me Tarzan

(James Fanshawe - won Leicester, 27/05)

I suggested that Me Tarzan was the sort to run up a sequence before the assessor could catch him up, and he defied a penalty for winning at Leicester. Unfortunately, that caused the assessor to raise him from 52 to 67, scuppering his immediate hopes of a hat-trick. He ran well to be a close fourth at Doncaster last time, but his future is arguably in the hands of the handicapper. It’s worth pointing out that horses worth following on the basis of a single run have a definite shelf life, with the handicapper’s subsequent assessment often the difference between success and failure.

Results: Won 4/11 Lingfield, Lost, Lost

THERE isn’t enough data at this stage to establish whether there is long-term value in this experiment, but there is some encouragement in early results to suggest that there is some advantage to be gained by backing horses who have run well while in receipt of notable sectional upgrades.

But the utility of the selections depends on several factors, not only a correct reading of the form, but the likelihood of individual horses being able to repeat performances and/or progress which is not a given in the circumstances.

It also relies on establishing whether a certain set of conditions should pertain before recommending a bet.

As Amathus arguably illustrates, it’s often more beneficial to deal with exposed handicappers and focus on a set of conditions in which they are likely to be most effective. The idea here is to identify horses who are in better form than the bare figures imply and, being an assessment of current form, it is best used over a fairly short period, unless some new information comes to light.

The other important factor here is that rigid “horses to follow” lists tend to follow the law of diminishing returns, in that the basis of adding such horses to a list is based on a single assessment from a single point in time, and fresh assessments can be made after each run, making the older notes less useful as time goes on.

Ideally, the list should be constantly refreshed based on latest data, bearing in mind that racehorses progress (and regress) at different rates and due to a multitude of factors.

THE only obvious error I made last time was including a recent three-year-old winner due to run under a penalty.

The horse was an almost unbackable price when following up and the handicapper’s immediate reaction was to raise the horse a couple of classes, and I’d ideally want to be dealing with horses who will be able to compete against a similar cohort in future.

It’s not easy at the best of times working out which horses are capable of working their way through the grades, so simply identifying a young horse who is showing sharp improvement isn’t enough to make a profit out of such a horse.

Using sectionals should identify horses who are under-rated in future, but one easy win throws future value into doubt very quickly, as was the case with Me Tarzan.

IN the next week or so, intend to produce another list of between five and 10 horses using similar criteria as last time, while adding some caveats.

In order to maximise the usefulness of any list, there should be as much data available as possible on selections, and they should ideally be older horses with established requirements in terms of trip, class and ground, with the sectional upgrade flagging such horses up as in form and ready to win again.

Where horses are less exposed, it’s hard to tell where they will be running in a couple of months’ time, so inclusion on the list for such runners should arguably be for X runs or until winning.

Once a horse wins, the criteria for betting on it also tend to change, with revised handicap marks and revised schedules tending to affect the attractiveness they hold as betting options.

The criteria for inclusion are quite narrow currently, and that should be expanded, although how that should happen requires further thinking and will be dictated by results to a large degree.