Negative: Repeat jumping errors

Mechanism and rationale

A jumping mistake noted in two or more of its last three runs. One mistake is forgivable; a horse that keeps making them is overbet.

The rule

race_type IN ('Hurdle', 'Chase') AND remarked_last3 = 3 AND jumping_errors_last3 >= 2

Reads: race_type, remarked_last3, jumping_errors_last3

Pre-registration

Spec hash (sha256 of the canonical pre-spec)

not designed yet

Frozen

not frozen

The definition can still change.

Backing

none

Kind

negative

Live from

none

Matched

none

Published

true

Rules

none

Source

none

System id

repeat-jumping-errors

Tier

confirmed

Where

race_type IN ('Hurdle', 'Chase') AND remarked_last3 = 3 AND jumping_errors_last3 >= 2

Discovery result

Not measured yet.

Falsification

No attacks yet. Only promising ideas are attacked.

Sealed holdout (vault)

Not queried. Only a frozen idea can spend its one query against the 2020-25 holdout.

Forward record

No forward record. Shadow tracking starts after the vault and counts only races run after the freeze.

Lineage

No parent and no descendants yet. When an agent mutates, generalises or splits this idea, the new hypotheses appear here.

Agent runs

• scout v1ok · 1m 5s · 16 Oct, 16:44

  Output (schema-checked)

  {
    "hypotheses": [
      {
        "title": "Raised handicap winners sent off at 9/1+ are over-bet, at any gap since the win",
        "family": "negative",
        "question_id": null,
        "reasoning": {
          "observation_ids": [
            "O-7c9eecf8",
            "O-23b5bd4e"
          ],
          "question": "Is the near-miss negative on long-priced raised handicap winners (0.57 on 255, killed only on count and p 0.065) a real feature of raised winners the market lets drift, and not something tied to a 14-day turnout?",
          "mechanism": "A handicap winner raised for the win has to run off a higher mark. When the price has still drifted to 9/1+ despite a last-time win, the horse usually won a weak or messy race and the rise has found it out. The win was a one-off on the day, not a step forward. The 14-day limit in H-21f9e6e7 was there only because of the story; the physical cause (a higher mark on a horse that is not improving) does not depend on the gap.",
          "market_miss": "The form figure '1' and the 'last-time winner' tag still pull in money from the public and from tipsters' systems, so even a drifting winner is backed shorter than its true chance. The rival result (big-rise class-risers at 1.16) shows the market does over-fade the obvious class-up case. That leaves this quieter, long-price case under-faded.",
          "prediction": {
            "direction": "negative",
            "size": "A/E 0.75 to 0.90 on 500+ bets",
            "falsified_if": "A/E 0.95 or higher on 300+ bets, or the drop exists only within 14 days (over-15-day bets at par)."
          },
          "rule_sketch": "last_position = 1 AND is_handicap = 1 AND last_is_handicap = 1 AND rating_change IS NOT NULL AND rating_change >= 1 AND sp_decimal > 9"
        },
        "confounders": [
          "price band: all long-price runners carry a favourite-longshot bias, so the same-race control matters",
          "field size (big handicaps make long prices more common)",
          "rating_change only exists from Nov 2025",
          "quick-turnout subset is already known, so the lift may be all old bets",
          "flat versus jumps mix"
        ],
        "expected_survival": 0.15
      },
      {
        "title": "Last-time winners that were slow in the race are over-bet at the front of the market",
        "family": "negative",
        "question_id": null,
        "reasoning": {
          "observation_ids": [
            "O-3c4b3666",
            "O-991dc8ad"
          ],
          "question": "Is a last-time win the figures call slow (top speed in the bottom part of its field) over-bet when the horse is in the top three of the betting next time?",
          "mechanism": "A horse that won while being slower at top speed than most of its field won through the shape of the race: a soft lead, a pace collapse, or rivals who failed to stay. That doesn't happen again on purpose. In a truly run race, a horse with low top speed lacks the engine to repeat. Easy winners showed real quality and beat their prices (O-991dc8ad); this is the opposite case, a win with no physical sign of ability.",
          "market_miss": "The form book and the result say 'won'. Commentators and the public see a winner and push it into the top three of the betting. The sectional top-speed figure is not in the racecard narrative, so the price follows the visible result and not the figure. This is the lesson 'distrust what was pretty and visible; the figures pay where they disagree with what everyone saw'.",
          "prediction": {
            "direction": "negative",
            "size": "A/E 0.82 to 0.92 on 300+ bets",
            "falsified_if": "A/E 0.97 or higher on 300+ bets, or A/E no lower than the same-race control."
          },
          "rule_sketch": "last_position = 1 AND last_top_speed_pct IS NOT NULL AND last_top_speed_pct <= 0.4 AND sp_rank <= 3"
        },
        "confounders": [
          "top-speed figures only from 2023 (GB) and 2024 (IRE), with gaps in coverage",
          "small fields where a pct is coarse",
          "front-runners in slowly run races score low on top speed by design",
          "code: in staying chases top speed matters less",
          "favourite price band"
        ],
        "expected_survival": 0.12
      },
      {
        "title": "Chase-bound winners that jumped poorly when winning are over-bet",
        "family": "negative",
        "question_id": null,
        "reasoning": {
          "observation_ids": [
            "O-23b5bd4e",
            "O-7c9eecf8"
          ],
          "question": "Do horses that won last time despite a poor Jump Index (bottom third of their field) run below their price today in a chase?",
          "mechanism": "Poor jumping costs lengths and energy at every fence, and the risk of a fall grows as the fences and the opposition get stiffer. A horse that won while jumping badly won through the engine or a weak field. Next time, after a rise or against better rivals, those lost lengths decide the race or bring a mistake. It's a physical flaw that stays hidden behind a winning result.",
          "market_miss": "The result shows a win, and race comments often call poor jumping 'novicey' and so forgivable. Bettors assume it will improve. The RaceiQ Jump Index shows how much ground was lost, but almost nobody prices it, so a winning horse's jumping is marked up by the result, not by the figure.",
          "prediction": {
            "direction": "negative",
            "size": "A/E 0.80 to 0.92 on 300+ bets",
            "falsified_if": "A/E 0.97 or higher on 300+ bets, or no lower than horses that won last time with a Jump Index in the top third."
          },
          "rule_sketch": "race_type = 'Chase' AND last_position = 1 AND last_jump_index_pct IS NOT NULL AND last_jump_index_pct <= 0.33"
        },
        "confounders": [
          "last run might have been a hurdle (jump index across codes)",
          "Jump Index coverage from 2023 GB, 2024 IRE",
          "small chase fields make the pct coarse",
          "novice versus handicap chases",
          "overlaps NEG-repeat-jumping-errors where the comments also flag errors"
        ],
        "expected_survival": 0.12
      }
    ]
  }

Timeline

1. hypothesis note NEG-repeat-jumping-errors

   15 Oct, 23:10 · importer

2. New idea NEG-repeat-jumping-errors: Negative: Repeat jumping errors (import)

   15 Oct, 23:10 · importer

Every change is an event with an actor: an agent and its version, an engine, a human, or the importer. Current stage: Live.