- This topic has 66 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
- Posts
I hear the soil particle size is down on previous years- that obviously rules out stalls 12 and 13.
Absurd extremes? Try this: <br>Horse-racing is a physical contest taking place in the real world and so serious consideration should be given to the conditions under which they are racing, notably the track, its contours, the going, the way it drains, the soil, grass cover etc
Which part of that is absurd? Are you suggesting that horse-racing is not a physical contest taking place in the real world?
I’ve been reading the threads on this forum for some time and have often thought that people get a little defensive sometimes.
However, I really have to wonder at the mentality of people who simply come on here to criticise. If you think the draw, the going and contours of the course have no bearing on the race, then good luck to you. This is a thread about the draw at Redcar, not on the efficacy of draw analysis.
My suggestion on another thread that horses race on the ground has been met with amusement in some quarters, as has my interest in establishing whether there is any draw bias at Redcar. I thought it might be interesting to establish whether people do completely ignore the draw (as Tom Segal suggested last year) or bear it in mind, even if they go on to conclude that it has no bearing in a particular race
stav,
It is difficult to make a logical case for fairness because it is a perception rather than something that can be easily measured. My perception of fairness is the course having few undulations, easy turns, a longish home stretch and no severe draw bias, so that given a clear run, a horse will have no real excuse. That said, the fate of favourites has a certain logic to it and is a persuasive argument. The only reason I can think of why favs perform so poorly at Redcar is perhaps the(above average) size of fields and the poor quality of horses taking part.
Do you have the stats for how Redcar fares compared to other courses for favs in terms of returns to a level stake?
I’ve heard that there are a lot of problems these days with predicting the effect of the draw on straight courses (due to watering, movement of rails etc).
I guess that, if this is true, it gives an advantage to those who work it out correctly.
Personally, I rarely bet on straight course handicaps.
But, on big field races round a turn (7-10f), I’m very aware of whether the draw is important. Particularly as, at these distances, the draw is undervalued by the market.
Steve
(as Tom Segal suggested last year)
To go back to Segal, I think his comments were misrepresented by a number of people on here.
In the article in question he put forward an argument along the lines of:
Pricing up a race involves taking a large number of variables and correctly factoring them into each horse’s winning chances.
Therefore, the successful punter is one who can factor in one or more of these variables more accurately than the market.<br> <br>He had come to the conculsion that he wasn’t very good at factoring in the effect of the draw and that the market did it better than he did.
So, he had decided to ignore the draw in his analysis and just assume that it had been taken account of correctly in the price of each of his selections.
(i.e. their price will be lower if the draw is good, higher if it’s bad)
Now, to me, that argument makes perfect sense. And it works well with certain betting approaches.
However, I don’t think it works well with the idea of pricewise as he’s looking for "standout prices" but, if he’s ignoring the draw, he’ll not notice that many of the stand out prices are so long because the horse had a very bad draw.
And I wasn’t surprised to find that, not long after he wrote that article, he was back talking about the draw.
Steve
Thats how i read it too Steve…and its a fair point
My view is that when the draw is a heavy (or even worse …unquantifiable) factor, i leave the race alone
Lincoln being an example
although i won last year :cheesy:
Thanks, stav.
Very interesting. It does seem that Redcar throws up more upsets than other tracks which I perceived as ‘fair’.
My list of fair tracks would include(from your list):
Bath, Yarmouth, Pontefract,Newbury, Newmarket, Newcastle, York, Haydock, and Salisbury. There are a few others on the fringe, such as Doncaster and Ascot.<br>They seem to be scattered about a bit, but the positions of Bath and Yarmouth support your argument.<br>
Excellent thread folks..
Based on Massey’s data
http://www.adrianmassey.com/draw/redc10.php
I was going to side with those draw down the middle but after reading the analysis above you guy’s have convinced me that those drawn down the middle should be given preference. We’ll find out after 3:15 tomorrow :o
PS: I am from the camp that says the draw is a factor (sometimes a major one along with pace) but a factor that falls into a secondary category after class ceilings, going preferences, recent form etc have been considered
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from EC on 7:43 pm on Mar. 24, 2006[br]another generalised bubble is burst..Redcar is far from fair.
it won’t make any difference telling SOME people that hold these old fashioned views though..why let facts get in the way of inaccurate, long held and unshakeable beliefs.
It’s a strange world..people that try and develop their knowledge and post stuff that may change people’s perspective about things are belittled by the narrowminded few on this thread..not one word of criticism from the regular policemen here though. I only have to say one word out of turn though and I have folk coming out of the woodwork criticising my attitude…not much consistency of policing evident here you policemen.
If you don’t believe in draws stats..then don’t read the thread..it’s simple..go and post about how much you hate Tommo or how well Claire Balding looks this week on other threads that may hold your interest.
(Edited by EC at 7:45 pm on Mar. 24, 2006)<br>
Your assumption of omnipotence may be a little premature?:) <br> If I am reading the tables correctly, then amongst the top 10  courses there are at least 6 with a strong draw bias, which would suggest that there is no correlation between fairness and the incidence of favourites winning. In other words, the latter cannot be used as a measure of the former as they are 2 distinct entities.<br> Likewise your assumption that others are the thread police, yet you are the one who tells people not to post on here, whilst informing others that they can’t tell you where to post.:biggrin:
This is one of my favourite racing questions and my answer is : ignore it mostly. When looking at a race the two biggest factors for me are the horse and its ability/form and the suitability of the distance/going/track. Next biggest factor for me would be stable form. A professional jockey is a professional jockey in my book and aside from the advantage the top handful can give and the other end of the scale (jockeys I will dodge) I don’t consider the rider too much. As for the draw I really cannot have this at all particularly on rounded tracks. Horses rarely break consistently from stalls, they get positioned god knows where in the race and blocked and baulked and with these unknowns that make differences of lengths lost and found in each race, where the horse starts from is mostly irrelevant to me and I feel that the better horse will account for it’s draw most times. Statistics of the draw make me laugh – what do people expect, an even spread of results for each trap ? I strongly suspect that people who pay a lot of attention to the effect of the draw before a race pay much less attention to the full race result the next day. My last words on this matter should be Miss Meggy – everyone in the pub told me over and over again that no horses had won from it’s draw at Beverley – which probably explained it’s price – if you’re 4 lengths better than the rest on the day you can afford to give the field a head short of 4 lengths handicap, can’t you ?
The relevance of the draw is of no greater importance than the ground, the weights carried, the likely pace of the race, the betting etc etc. The only difference is the importance of each of these varies from course to course and race to race from time to time.
Stav
Is your suggestion that the higher up the table a course is, the lower thei bias?
If so, I’d be curious to know why Goodwood is so near the top. It has draw bias on both the straight course and the round course.
Epson (1st on your list) has biases at certain distances (7F & 8F114y).
I would say that Windsor (4th) has bias at a mile and it is often claimed it has bias at 5&6F.
That’s 3 of the first 5 courses.
So, what exactly is the significance of a high or low position in your table when it comes to draw biases?
I’ve clearly missed the point.
Steve
Looking at that table of courses got me thinking.
I got out my out-of-date copy of RSB and tried something.
I took the even years (1992-2002) and ranked the courses by the LSP% of the favourites.
The best 5 courses were (not in order): HQ July, Chester, Warwick, Salisbury, Southwell (turf).
The worst 5 courses were (not in order): HQ Rowley, Chepstow, Carlisle, Ayr, Windsor.
I then looked to see how these 2 groups of courses did in the odd years 1993-2003.
The first group ("best for favourites") lost 7.23%
The second group lost only 4.74%
So, in the odd years, you’d have been better off backing the favourites at the courses where the favourites did worst in the even years.
So, if the performance of the favourites is a reflection of the bias in the course, how does it explain my results?
Steve
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.