Live Q&A: Miles Tredwell

| July 10, 2018 | 3 Replies

A live Q&A with Syndicate and Racing Code tipster Miles Tredwell will take place here between 1pm and 2pm on Wednesday 11th July. You can post your questions in the comments below or email them to

If you would like to give the Syndicate a try, just click this link.

Afternoon All,

There’s a cup of tea to my right, the dog’s (currently) asleep to my left, the page is set-up, there’s no distraction of sport of the tv (unless you count tennis) and we’re good to go. If you have any questions please feel free to put them up in the comments section below.

Daniel kicks us off…

Hello Miles,

When handicapping a race, what statistics or information are most important to you? Thank you

Hi Daniel and thanks for the question.

Essentially I’m looking for a horse that is better than its current handicap mark and there are lots of ways or reasons to reaching this conclusion. It could have only had a small number of runs and improved with each. It could be a run or two back from a long break and be returning to full form and/or fitness. It could be with a yard that has been out of form and improving now or tends to have a slow start to the season and then picks up.

Watching recent races may reveal that it’s been running well but hasn’t had the luck- it may have had bad draws, been given poor rides or not been able to get an opening.

It can also be worth seeing how those that have finished around the horse have got on since. Eg if it finished 5th and those that finished 2nd, 4th and 6th won in similar conditions next time out then it suggests it was a strong race and needs marking up, whereas if they’ve all been well beaten it probably wasn’t as strong.

Changes in conditions are also well worth taking note of, for better or for worse. A horse that’s been running respectably on unfavoured ground will need marking up if returned to its ideal conditions, for example.

A horse is handicapped on how it has finished and not how it has run or travelled earlier in the race. A favoured angle of mine is to find a strong traveller that hasn’t seen the race out, weakening close to home and falling back through the field, that is then dropped back in trip. When you find one of those then you see the change of distance as a positive and apply that into the mix of information.

One final point on handicapping is that in handicaps, higher rated horses win more often than lower rated horses, despite carrying more weight. Since the start of last year in turf flat handicaps, horses rated 1-15 HIGHER than the average rating in the race have won 4315 times at a strike-rate of just over 12%, whereas those rated 1-15 LOWER than the average handicap rating in the race have only won 2571 at a strike-rate just under 8%. So, quality does edge weight in handicaps to some extent.


hi since the start of betfair all these so called compilers in the newspapers are so far off the mark with their betting forecast I have seen paper favourites marked up at 4/1 seem to drift like a barge pole priced on the off 25/1, when are we going to get a true value of a horses sp instead of these micky mouse paper sps which are ripping the public off  , Christ bring back the sporting life or chronicle and lets get some true sps thank you colin 

Hi Colin,

I feel your angst and yes it can be frustrating to hope for a certain price that is nothing like the prices available.

On the subject of newspaper tippers, I think there are some very good ones but the process they’re being asked to do often masks that. It really is daft to ask them to tip in every single race. What this means is there is absolutely no chance they can give all or even most of the races enough time to analyse sufficiently and also that they have to know a bit about every type of race, thus spreading their focus far too thinly.

The second problem is that most, if not all, have to provide their selections before odds are available. Does that mean they’re just going for the most likely winner, or making selections that might offer value and are worth backing- not the same thing, as discussed in the answers to the quiz- and because of not knowing that it’s hard for them to be of much use.

In fairness to them, their predicted prices, or tissue prices, are arrived at by asking the bookmakers what their initial prices are likely to be and then the average price is used. That bit is not always accurate either though.

Afterwards, price movements all the way through to SPs change according to volume of money and balancing profit and liabilities which would take a soothsayer to know in advance, so I think they should be forgiven for getting that wrong.

Either way, when placing a bet if the price is acceptable then go for it, if the price doesn’t give a better chance of winning then leave alone. I wouldn’t recommend betting at SP or BSP (unless it’s just before the off) because if you don’t know the price then you don’t know if it’s a worthwhile bet or not.


Is there any point in backing odds on favourites. There is no value in backing them as the reward is not worth the risk. What do you think? Nigel

This was a question asked recently that I’ve slightly changed to make it more general (I’m sure Nigel won’t mind).

I largely agree with the sentiment based on wanting a horse to have a better chance of winning than its odds suggest as there has to be a point somewhere when a horse can’t offer sufficient value.

The simple question I ask before making a selection is whether I’d make a 20+% profit if I made that bet repeatedly.

Bets at evens I’d want to win 60+% of the time to give a 20+% ROI (Return on Investment) and bets at 2/1 I’d want to win 40+% for same reason.

With odds-on picks, if odds were 1.8 they’d need to win 67+% of the time to return a 20+% ROI which is still achievable but is heading towards the point where the margins are increasingly slight.

If after analysis the conclusion it that they would win that race over 67% of the time then it’s an acceptable bet. But, as before, I wouldn’t just back something because it’s likely to win, the key factor has to be that it’s more likely to win than the odds imply.


The two topics I tend to get asked about most are win only versus each-way betting and singles or multiples. With that in mind, here’s part of an article I wrote a while ago about multiples:

I think it’s fair to say that using multiples splits opinions. Comments I’ve received
along the lines of ‘Any form of multiple- doubles, Trixies or accumulators- are the
quick way to the poor house’ against ‘I like to combine my bets into multies because
it increases the returns’ certainly suggests as much. So which opinion is correct?

However contradictory it may seem, the answer is both. This is because putting
selections into multiples exaggerates the positive or negative edge a punter has.

To illustrate, I’ll use two bettors, one who loses money over time and the other
who wins money. Let’s say the loser loses 20% of their stakes over time and the
other makes 20% profit. For simplicity, let’s also say that both only use selections
priced at evens.

The punter who loses 20% on single selections at evens only gets 80 back for every 100
staked so has a winning strike-rate of 40%.

Similarly, as the profitable punter makes 20% so gets back 120 for every 100 staked, he or she therefore wins 60% of his singles bets
at evens.

If both then decide to do doubles (rather than singles) with two selections
at evens, the following happens:

The losing punter wins the first selection 40 times out of 100. Of those 40 times, it’ll
then be followed by success in the 2nd selection 40% of the time which means the
double wins 16 times in 100. Four times the stake is returned for each successful
bet, so 64 is returned from 100 staked, resulting in the normal 20% loss on singles
becoming increased to now losing 36% of money staked on doubles.

The winning punter wins the first selection 60 times out of 100. Of those 60 times,
it’ll then be followed by success in the 2nd selection 60% of the time which means
the double wins 36 times in 100. Four times the stake is returned, so 144 is returned
from 100 staked, resulting in the normal 20% profit becoming increased to now
showing a profit of 44% on top of money staked.

If we add another selection to make the double into a treble, then continuing the
same process causes the losing punter to now be down 48.8% and the punter with
the positive edge increases their advantage to 72.8%.

Because the majority of bettors lose money it’s not only easy to see why bookmakers
heavily promote such bets, but it also makes logical business sense for them to do
so. However, for those of us who do have a positive edge, it also makes sense for us
to use them, as long as we do so applying common sense.




Category: Betting Tips

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Daniel Prohnij says:

    Hello Miles,

    When handicapping a race, what statistics or information are most important to you? Thank you

  2. Keith Watson says:

    Hi Miles,

    Are Matt and you considering holding any further “met the tipster” events over the coming months?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not yet a member? Join Betting Rant free and get access to all the members only content including free betting systems!

Already a member but haven't registered yet? Please follow the links to the registration page in any email issue of Betting Rant from 12th July 2012 onwards.

Discover five proven ways to beat the bookies for FREE

Sign up here and I'll immediately email you Five ways to get a mathematical edge on the bookies, worth £40, COMPLETELY FREE of charge… what's more you'll also receive my e-letter, The Betting Rant… and again, it's COMPLETELY FREE.

I respect your privacy and will never pass
on your email address to anyone else.

© 2019 Betting Rant. All rights reserved. | Agora Lifestyles Ltd, Registered office: Curzon House, 24 High St, Banstead SM7 2LJ | Registered in England No. 3303666. VAT No. GB 629 7287 94

Gambling is high risk, never bet with money you cannot afford to lose. Please gamble responsibly, for information and advice visit the gambleaware website at: This content is not intended for audiences under the age of 18 years of age.