The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Actual Stats on E/W & Non-Runners

Home Forums Horse Racing Actual Stats on E/W & Non-Runners

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #262
    betlargebetlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2663

    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’.

    Three Data Sets, click here.

    <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>

    #27856
    FlatSeasonLoverFlatSeasonLover
    Member
    • Total Posts 2065

    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?

    #27857
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    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:

    #27858
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    Mike,<br>flatstats have a few aticles on their site about this and they take a different view.

    #27859
    betlargebetlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2663

    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>

    #27860
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    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.  

    #27861
    barry dennis
    Member
    • Total Posts 398

    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.

    #27862
    betlargebetlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2663

    I hope McCririck sees this research and refers to it on C4 when next raising the conspiracy theory.  

    <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

    #27863
    FlatSeasonLoverFlatSeasonLover
    Member
    • Total Posts 2065

    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.

    #27864
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1981

    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.

    #27865
    robnorthrobnorth
    Participant
    • Total Posts 4569

    Glenn

    If presented with conclusive evidence that black is black, you would still argue it was white!

    Rob

    #27866
    Glenn
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1981

    You’ve lost me Mr North.

    <br>

    (Edited by Glenn at 6:40 pm on Feb. 2, 2007)

    #27867
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    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.

    #27868
    betlargebetlarge
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2663

    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

    #27869
    davidjohnson
    Member
    • Total Posts 4491

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.