- This topic has 86 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
So there is a draw advantage, unless my maths is poorer than i thought?
Probably more than your maths.
Exactly. Presumably where the horses begin from a tape start at Cheltenham has the same effect?
A sprint at Beverley in extreme going I would concede a possible advantage but most everywhere else draw effect is both under analysed and any perceived (often wrongly) discrepancy over-compensated for in it’s effect in an outcome.
Just my opinion of course, no more valid than anyone else’s.
Exactly. Presumably where the horses begin from a tape start at Cheltenham has the same effect?
A sprint at Beverley in extreme going I would concede a possible advantage but most everywhere else draw effect is both under analysed and any perceived (often wrongly) discrepancy over-compensated for in it’s effect in an outcome.
Just my opinion of course, no more valid than anyone else’s.
Eh? People are not backing horses at Cheltenham or any other NH race based on the draw as it is not a factor.
The draw is a factor on the flat, and that factor is factored in to the prices available to back at. Such factors were nullified after many punters had struck their bets. Thus it is perhaps unfair.
Look at the results from this century:
2000 Bangalore 4, 3, 17, 5, 15 Winner made all, with the two badly drawn being Chester specialists Fantasy Hill and Rainbow High.
2001 Fantasy Hill first three 7, 8 and 6.
2002 Rainbow High first two 5 and 4.
2003 Hugs Dancer 2 and 3.
2004 Anak Pekan 4 and 18.
2005 Anak Pekan 15 and 8. Winner got over to race up with the pace.
2006 Admiral 1 and 2. Winner made all.
2007 Greenwich Meantime 16, 13 11. Winner a Chester specialist.
2008 Bullwark 11 and 13.
2009Daraahem 4, 8, 7, 6 All four single figure draws.
2010 Mamlook drawn 5. Apart from the second Chester specialist Tastahil (who got over to race prominently) the first eaight home were single figures. 5, 16, 6, 1, 4, 3, 2, 7.
2011 Overturn 1 and 3. Winner made all.2012 Ile De Re 13, 8, 19, 5, 15. A totally different race.
You’d have to be an idiot not to see that draw advantage has a significant effect on the result. Those from a high draw can sometimes negate draw advantage with a quick start to get a prominent early position. Those well drawn who usually race prominently have the best of both worlds… Unless it is a flag start.
Value Is EverythingSo there is a draw advantage, unless my maths is poorer than i thought?
No. On a number of occasions since 1994 (at least four, I haven’t got full stats) there were less than 18 runners, so that skews the figures towards the low-draw numbers.
Allowing for that, the spread of placed stalls is pretty much equal throughout, implying that the Chester Cup is possibly the
least
draw-influenced race in the calendar!!
And having said that, the sample size is of course too small to draw any conclusions.
Mike
Sorry Ginge
Was only having a laugh. Agree there was a likelihood of a flag start favouring a horse like Overturn who has experience of firing off in front as soon as the tape goes in the air over jumps.
I suggest you look at my post above before coming to such a conclusion Mike. Of the first 2 home in the last 11 years (from year 2000) 17 of the 22 had single figure draws.
You are also missing the point about prominent runners having an advantage. With many of those who usually race prominently today not being able to do so because they were not used to a flag start. When not able to do what they’re used to their chance has been eliminated when behind a wall of horses. For future form analysis I’ll be ignoring most of today’s Chester Cup.
Value Is EverythingSo there is a draw advantage, unless my maths is poorer than i thought?
No. On a number of occasions since 1994 (at least four, I haven’t got full stats) there were less than 18 runners, so that skews the figures towards the low-draw numbers.
Allowing for that, the spread of placed stalls is pretty much equal throughout, implying that the Chester Cup is possibly the
least
draw-influenced race in the calendar!!
And having said that, the sample size is of course too small to draw any conclusions.
Mike
What formula do you use "Allowing for that"? To my maths you are best drawn low, so i’ll be interested to hear your reply.
If you’d steadily backed one, would you be equally happy to be drawn 18 as drawn 1, or see being drawn 1 as a statistical advantage and feel a bit better?
Messy indeed
in fairness if punters were told today at say 12 midday , that there was a high probability of a flag start , then in my opinion a shed load of them would have given this race a huge swerve
so in those circumstances , I would offer the view that punters were cheated and they lost
But the again racing is funded by losses , so why on earth would anyone who runs racing give punters a fair chance ……bullocks
I dont often agree with Ginger , but I strongly agree with him on this one , it was a shambles and a farce
On a different note , was refreshing to see Joseph get a ban for being over zealous , these Irish lads will have to adapt or stay at home ……(someone give Corm a stiff drink )
Imo
cheers
Ricky
"In fairness if punters were told today at say 12 midday , that there was a high probability of a flag start , then in my opinion a shed load of them would have given this race a huge swerve"
Yep, but i’m sure the enlightened such as Mr Sberry will point out that Chelters doesn’t have stalls so whats the problem.
Okay, we’ll ignore this year for form as it didn’t match our expectations or bets.
Last 11 runs not counting this year? Make it last 22 runs. Of those, 9 winners were drawn low, 6 mid and 7 high.
But though there may not have been a flag start for those we can’t yet count them for form without thoroughly checking whether they got a good start or pos or not, had luck in running, had suitable ground, a jockey advantage, whether or not their stable was in form or whether they had been fit up for the race, running off nicely lowered handicaps, decent preps, breaks, form, etc.
After all, we know that the start is so crucial in this race.
We can convince ourselves bare numbers mean something, they don’t, always.
Now, weight carried, only once in the last 22 years has a horse carried over 9st with cut in the ground and 16 of 22 have carried 9 or less – that’s a better stat, put a line through those with fat jockeys.
Sorry Ginge
Was only having a laugh. Agree there was a likelihood of a flag start favouring a horse like Overturn who has experience of firing off in front as soon as the tape goes in the air over jumps.
No problem David
Value Is EverythingOkay, we’ll ignore this year for form as it didn’t match our expectations or bets.
Last 11 runs not counting this year? Make it last 22 runs. Of those, 9 winners were drawn low, 6 mid and 7 high.
But though there may not have been a flag start for those we can’t yet count them for form without thoroughly checking whether they got a good start or pos or not, had luck in running, had suitable ground, a jockey advantage, whether or not their stable was in form or whether they had been fit up for the race, running off nicely lowered handicaps, decent preps, breaks, form, etc.
After all, we know that the start is so crucial in this race.
We can convince ourselves bare numbers mean something, they don’t, always.
Now, weight carried, only once in the last 22 years has a horse carried over 9st with cut in the ground and 16 of 22 have carried 9 or less – that’s a better stat, put a line through those with fat jockeys.
Yep, and that fact didn’t alter one bit – unlike the draw stat becoming an irrelevance after millions of people had already struck their bets potentially with the draw in mind.
Connections can sign a piece of paper saying they do not want their horse to run with 3 shoes if it can not be reshod before the race.
Racing without starting stalls changes the race enormously. So…
Should punters be able to inform bookmakers they want their bets declared VOID in any race where starting stalls are subseqently not used?
Such a rule would not affect any race where it is always going to be run without stalls (eg Salisbury’s 1m6f track).
Value Is EverythingSo there is a draw advantage, unless my maths is poorer than i thought?
No. On a number of occasions since 1994 (at least four, I haven’t got full stats) there were less than 18 runners, so that skews the figures towards the low-draw numbers.
Allowing for that, the spread of placed stalls is pretty much equal throughout, implying that the Chester Cup is possibly the
least
draw-influenced race in the calendar!!
And having said that, the sample size is of course too small to draw any conclusions.
Mike
What formula do you use "Allowing for that"? To my maths you are best drawn low, so i’ll be interested to hear your reply.
If you’d steadily backed one, would you be equally happy to be drawn 18 as drawn 1, or see being drawn 1 as a statistical advantage and feel a bit better?
The original stats from Indocine were: "I did since 1994 for horses placed in top 3. I get 18 placed from stalls 1-6, 16 placed from stalls 7-12 and 14 placed from stalls 13-18.
I was simply pointing out that there were a number of races in that period with less than 18 runners. This means with no stalls numbered 16, 17, 18 etc in some years, there are fewer potential placed horses from the ’13-18′ category. It also doesn’t allow for non-runners from
any
stall, in which case the stall number is non-existant.
Mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.