- This topic has 28 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
With respect to something that Corm started on the Trends board (‘Who are the REAL each-way thieves’), I have analysed the last five year’s racing and provide a link below to threee data sets.
This compares the number of non-runners for All Races (set 1), Non-Handicap races (set 2) and Handicap races (set 3).
The columns are explained thus:
Runners<br>The number of runners that were declared in the race – NOT necessarily the number that actually ran.
Allraces<br>The number of races with that number of runners declared.
Correct<br>The number of races with that number of runners, where there are no non-runners.
Correctp<br>The percentage of ‘correct’ races to ‘allraces’.
Lessran<br>The number of races with less than that number of runners, (i.e. where there are non-runners).
Lessranp<br>The percentage of ‘lessran’ races to ‘allraces’.
Totalruns<br>The actual total numbers of all horses running in races with the declared number.
Totalnons<br>The actual total numbers of all horses non-running in races with the declared number.
Totalnonp<br>The percentage of ‘totalnons’ races to ‘totalruns’.
<br>My brief reading of all this is that there are no particular statistical stand-outs, even around the supposedly ‘sensitive’ areas of 8 runner- and 16 runner- (hcap) races.
Does this debunk McCririck’s ‘THEY’VE taken one out’ theory?
Let me know.
Mike
<br>
Looks like it BetLarge, but why do the 17 runner races always seem to have non-runners? And sorry if I read the data like a moron, but does it tell how many runners are usually pulled out of 17 runner races, ie is it normally 2 horses?
I think the sample sizes are too small and the distribution of the number of non-runners isn’t taken into account. So I’m not convinced, not that you are wrong !<br>:cool:
Mike,<br>flatstats have a few aticles on their site about this and they take a different view.
but why do the 17 runner races always seem to have non-runners?
Just less than half have non-runners, but that pretty much follows the increasing trend – the more runners per race, the bigger percentage of races with non-runners.
I think the sample sizes are too small and the distribution of the number of non-runners isn’t taken into account.
Well the sample size is what it is, based on five season’s data. I agree about the number of non-runners.
I might try something with specific regard to 8 & 16-runner races.
Mike<br>
betlarge,
Interesting statistics and always the best way to look at conspiracy theories. The final column ‘totalnonp’ around the 16,17, and 18 runners declared shows that non runners are more likely in hanicaps than non handicaps, although how significant this might be is debatable. Personally, I don’t go along with the idea that the bookmaking establishment are deliberately engineering withdrawals in 16,17 and 18 runner handicaps to avoid paying out on the 4th place. I think it’s just random chance at work.
Looking at this useful peice of research, It seems that generally handicaps have a greater ‘totalnonp’ than non handicaps. This may be due to the fact that handicappers are more likely to have known going preferences compared to untried non handicappers, and are therefore more likely to be pulled out if the ground doesn’t suit. Also, the handicappers are rarely in races where they have to take their chance because of the lack of alternative races.
I hope McCririck sees this research and refers to it on C4 when next raising the conspiracy theory.
I brought these stats to his attention about 2 months ago( the RP revealed similar facts last november),
he was gutted, so started his crooked sp campaign.
I hope McCririck sees this research and refers to it on C4 when next raising the conspiracy theory. ÂÂÂ
<br>Yeah, right. 33’s with me.  As Barry’s post implies McC hardly seems the humble pie sort.
The interesting quote is FSL’s ‘s ‘but why do the 17 runner races always seem to have non-runners?’.
They do have a lot of non-runners but no more (proportionately) than 14,15,18 or 19 runner races.  I suspect the answer is that every time it occurs with those ‘sensitive’ races, some bloke on the telly points it out somewhat forcefully.
For years, people thought that the ‘outsider of three’ was the one to back until research showed that it was the least profitable on a LSP basis.  It’s just that every time one won it would be similarly pointed out ad nauseam.  Power of suggestion, I suppose.
Mike
What I meant was isn’t it slightly DISproportionate in the data set? And also what I mean is there doesn’t seem to be many 17 runner races reduced to 16; it always seems to be 17 reduced to 15 though it could just be paranoia.
This is destroying a paper tiger.
The real question is: Has there been a conspiracy to reduce the proportion of four-place handicaps in the last five years?
Anyone who thinks there hasn’t must bark at the moon. Let’s have some stats on the number of four place handicaps in each of these five years.
Glenn
If presented with conclusive evidence that black is black, you would still argue it was white!
Rob
Mike .. how I would carry out this analysis would be like this ..
Work out what chance there is of a horse being a non-runner, in its own right. So, for every declared runner x% could be a non-runner and hold that as a constant.
I’d write a model to calculate each ‘number of runners in race’ chances of a non-runner.
Then I’d compare the results to the actual data.
Mike .. how I would carry out this analysis would be like this ..
(etc)<br>I’ll see what I can do Dave.
The real question is: Has there been a conspiracy to reduce the proportion of four-place handicaps in the last five years?
Anyone who thinks there hasn’t must bark at the moon. Let’s have some stats on the number of four place handicaps in each of these five years.
<br>As you rightly point out Glenn, the numbers of 4-place handicaps are declining sharply and absolutely collapsed last year.
Whether that is a ‘conspiracy’ is a different matter.  Whether it is a conspiracy involving trainers, owners and non-runners seems fanciful to my mind.
The following shows the Year, No of 4-place handicaps and their percentage against all races run.  UK Flat races only:
2006  277   4.98<br>2005  448   8.43<br>2004  455   8.66<br>2003  527  11.04<br>2002  613  13.38<br>2001  652  14.68<br>2000  542  12.44<br>1999  528  12.13<br>1998  454  10.84
Mike
Wonder what those figures would look like using just turf handicaps. It’s no surprise given the volume of all-weather racing and field sizes of 14 max that the number is reduced. Although that could be the point with some of these controversial ‘safety’ limits.
- Total Posts 17716
Southwell safety limit reduced from 16 to 14 on exactly the same course?<br>Lingfield reduced from 16 to 14 on exactly the same course?<br>Kempton safety limit set at 14, but safe for 17 runners in feature races?<br>Wolverhampton, I believe, has always had a maximum of 13 runners.<br>Great Leighs ????????? …. but it won’t be 16.
That is what you call a conspiracy!<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.