- This topic has 16 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
i often bet "blind" on the draw. I have started to notice that stalls are no longer left empty. that is: if (say) stall 3 is a non-runner, then stall 4 becomes 3 and stall 5 becomes 4. This can affect not only my bets but future stats. Anyone know when this started to happen and why?
terryIt has been going on for a long time. Indeed, I cannot remember a time when it did not happen (though I primarily followed jumps until 1997).
I, too, would like the draw to be the draw when declared rather than whatever shakes out as a result of subsequent non-runners. Not sure anyone in authority understands the implications of this policy, however.
Some of my best pick ups have been on the straight course at Ascot when the betting public has generally imagined that there is a stand-rail bias in smaller fields.
Get a 30-runner race, with horses going to the far side in decent numbers, and this is often shown to be bunkum.
Get 8 non-runners in that 30-runner race, with the stalls shuffled across to the stand side rather than left where they were, and the chance of enough runners going to the far side for this to happen almost vanishes.
It has been going on for a long time. Indeed, I cannot remember a time when it did not happen (though I primarily followed jumps until 1997).
I, too, would like the draw to be the draw when declared rather than whatever shakes out as a result of subsequent non-runners. Not sure anyone in authority understands the implications of this policy, however.
Don’t agree – it would make it really messy if you had loads of non runners with horses potentially isolated from the rest of the field.
It would also be yet another disincentive to run from a "bad" draw at a track like Chester. If you get a horse drawn 16 that actually runs and draws 15,14,13 and 12 all come out with "vet certificates", it would be a bit harsh to make the honest connections start from the car park…
But that is where the horse was drawn in the first place and is the information the punter is entitled to think applies when having a bet or when analysing past performances.
The "dishonesty" – perceived or actual – of other connections is a separate issue and is an irrelevance in this context.
Someone laying stall 16 and finding that its disadvantage has been lessened by becoming stall 10 is entitled to a fair crack of the whip. As is someone who has backed stall 2 in the belief that the form "good thing" had no chance from stall 16.
Interesting discussion this and just goes to prove that trying to form your own draw stats by simply looking at winning stall numbers will only give you a small part of a confusing picture.
I get the impression that some people (not posters in this thread I hasten to add) believe there are magic properties associated with certain stalls. Almost as if there’s a special potion in low boxes at Chester etc.
As Prufrock has stated, it’s not the actual stalls themselves which create an advantage or disadvantage, but, more often than not, the animal’s proximity to either rail.
I’m with Prufrock here.
Once again a case of moving the goalposts.
It’s OK if you’re at the course or watching on the box but if you are striking your bet early on you only have part of the story.
As a punter, I’d much prefer to have the field racing as a "pack" where it is more likely that hold up horses can get cover and the race will develop in a normal and predictable way. I’m convinced your solution would lead to some thoroughly bizarre and unsatisfactory contests in races with significant numbers of NRs. Do we really want races with horses splitting and racing in several tiny little groups?
I don’t really buy the point about either pre or post race analysis either. It isn’t difficult to work out what stall a horse has actually raced from. And if you are worried about NRs scuppering your draw related bet, then just wait until near the off before wagering.
I’m with Prufrock here.
Once again a case of moving the goalposts.
It’s OK if you’re at the course or watching on the box but if you are striking your bet early on you only have part of the story.
seabird
If the stalls positions are changed at least you can ascertain that information if you wait until near the start. If you are unable to do that then you just have to accept it as part of the disadvantage of betting off course.
I can gain an advantage in some races from being on course by checking horses in the paddock. Does that mean I’m moving the goalposts? I think not, though it gives me more of an advantage over you than does the ‘shifting up’ in stalls positions.
Rob
Rob, the condition of the horse is an unknown to the off-course punter, unless you are prepared to judge condition from a TV picture or rely on the view of the TV paddock expert, the draw is published overnight and is there for all to see.
Colin
As several have said, this has been going on for a while. I would think that the 48 decs have made it more noticable as you now get more NRs, or at least the chance of a lot more in the same race, especially if the ground changes substantially in the now increased time period between declaration and race day.
Chris
I don’t really buy the point about either pre or post race analysis either. It isn’t difficult to work out what stall a horse has actually raced from. And if you are worried about NRs scuppering your draw related bet, then just wait until near the off before wagering.
Let me hazard a guess: you have not tried to much in the way of draw analysis yourself, TDK.
It is great fun – NOT – replacing a horse’s stall number with its stall ranking, or its back-to-front stall ranking if the runners are shuffled towards the higher numbers, before analysing a data sample. None of the major form products does this balls-aching job for you.
And even then you might be wrong, because stalls can be left empty, depending on when horses have been withdrawn or on an apparent whim of the course management.
On the other point, I happen to think that the more people feel compelled to delay their bets until close to the off, the more likely they are to find a reason not to have a bet at all, not least because not everyone is in a position to bet just before the off in any case.
If anything, I would have thought you would be more bothered by that than would I.
I don’t think making your draw analysis less of a bind is a good enough reason to change (and potentially damage) the sport.
If there is a serious prospect of several NRs then I think a lot of punters are naturally going to delay their bets anyway. I don’t see how changing the draw rules would suddenly mean that everyone could bet with more confidence. Indeed If I was backing a hold up horse from a wide draw in a sprint, I would be far more worried about it being isolated under your proposed system than I would be about its stall position being changed under the current rules.
I am with Prufrock on this one. The draw as published is how the horses should line up with gaps where there are withdrawals. This punter, and many others, are fed up with the amount of moving of the goalposts that has been going on – inaccurate going forecasts, overwatering, differential watering, rail repositioning, mass withdrawals etc – and stability and reliable information is much needed.
The reasons for not leaving gaps have little merit in my opinion. As for the benefits of horses running in a group, they will still do that if they want to or do the opposite if they don’t want to regardless of gaps. For every horse in a sprint that needs to be covered up in a group you will find one that needs to be front rank, and/or is intimidated by other horses and/or will not go through gaps and needs to be brought wide etc. Many will welcome having stall gaps and as Pru writes some gaps are inevitable with late withdrawals.
The effect of the draw on the shape of the race, who will be able to get to the front and whether groups split off and go to the opposite rail is the sort of thing that punters that specialise on sprints will very much take into account.
As things stand punting on sprints is becoming less attractive as there is too much unpredicable moving of the goalposts going on.
I don’t think making your draw analysis less of a bind is a good enough reason to change (and potentially damage) the sport.
And, obviously I would have thought, neither do I.
I just wished to correct your strange assertion "it isn’t difficult to work out what stall a horse has actually raced from…" Perhaps you would like to do it on my behalf then?
Other than that, I don’t see the point of continuing to go over the same ground. You have one valid view. I have another. I very much doubt we are going to agree.
It can’t be hard to get someone to order a set of numbers for you Prufrock. I am no computer expert, but there are people who could probably program that in a few minutes?
Final question. If you had a 20 runner hcap reduced to say 6 runners by a big change in the ground. Would you be happy to see the horses race from, say 1,2,3,10,16,20? I think it would be a total shambles.
It can’t be hard to get someone to order a set of numbers for you Prufrock. I am no computer expert, but there are people who could probably program that in a few minutes?
It indeed is not hard – I am no computer expert and even I have managed to do it – but it DOES seem to be very hard for you to get your head around the fact that the reordering of stalls is not done consistently, that it does not appear in the official records and that people are betting under the false belief that draw information is robust.
I agree that a 20-runner handicap reduced to 6 runners would be a total shambles. I also think it would be a total shambles, in your hypothetical instance, if stall 20 was originally drawn against a favoured far rail and ended up running from stall 6 against the stands side.
Is there any point continuing with this, BTW?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.