- This topic has 66 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
- Posts
Thanks all for your interesting responses.
I deliberately chose the options to reflect my opinion on the draw – that it is something to be considered when assessing a race – rather than trying to assert that it is the main or primary factor.
Personally speaking, the draw is maybe fifth or sixth on my list of priorities, but it is certainly something I look at. I would not endorse the G Wheldon view that it is the most important factor.
I would also suggest that ‘the draw’ includes a multitude of factors, from the effects of uneven watering, to the contours of the track.
My final point is that I think we should all be a little more respectful of one another’s views. If someone comes on here and states dogmatically that one factor is the most important and everything else is irrelevant, then they should expect some comeback. As far as I am aware, no-one has stated the draw is the paramount factor, but it is something to at least be considered. This seems perfectly reasonable and, as this poll shows, most people seem to agree.
Arandalde,
In some races – it is the most important factor. In some races it has little or no effect.
Anyone ignoring it completely will really struggle in some races as the they may think they are getting value about a horse, when they are massivly handicapped by the draw.
(Edited by Sailing Shoes at 8:43 pm on Mar. 25, 2006)
- Total Posts 17716
Stav<br> A relatively short reply to  a few of your points.<br> Firstly, congratulations on picking the winner, you did, I didn’t, that gives you the edge on the most important point. Some of the others I would still take issue with.<br> Redcar is a fair course, i.e. a straight, flat,fairly wide Im, with generally even ground which confers no great advantage to any particular section. Not just my view, but the view of most of the jockeys and trainers who gave their thoughts before the race. Beverley and Chester, quite obviously, aren’t.<br> The fairness of the handicapping system is a totally separate issue, and it is wrong to use one to justify the other.<br> Cesare didn’t  run his race, the fact that he finished 17l behind the winner, drawn only 3 stalls away from him, suggests that it was rather more than the draw that made the difference? The view that " those racing wide were at a disadvantage" hardly holds up in the light of the result of the consolation race, either. <br> The ‘false premises‘ quote was from another member, which I re-quoted in reply, and to use that as a the basis for your "arrogant, condescending crap" attack was both unjustified and unnecessary. <br> TRF is all about opinions, not personalities, though a number of recent posts would be more at home on the Betfair forum.<br>Keep smiling.:) <br>RH<br>
Miss Meggy’s race was a conditions (listed) event i.e at the weights a greater range of ratings/abilities on show, so in such races the draw is likely to be of less significance than in a handicap.
Exaggerating to prove a point: If Dayjur was drawn 1 in a 5f conditions sprint at Bev up against 19 handicappers you’d still expect him to be an odds-on shot.
- Total Posts 17716
Stav<br> If you really are that desperate to be right – then your right!<br> I’ll ignore the fact that you quoted sp’s as a guide to course configuration?<br> That you established with those figures that Beverley and Chester, (And almost every other course in the country) are fairer courses than Redcar?<br> That you placed the stalls, at will, where on the course you needed them to fit your arguments? <br> That courses aren’t fair because handicaps aren’t fair?<br> That those "racing wide were at a disadvantage",even though your earlier post had shown 7/8 won by horses drawn 6 or lower ?<br> That you deemed a stall to be empty because the horse refused to race?<br> That you used a 4l winner, drawn 2, in an earlier race,(Even when you had conveniently surmised him to be drawn 6 – another ‘impossible’ draw), to illustrate how unfair Redcar was to horse drawn in the extremities?<br> That you believe your knowledge of the ‘fairness’ of Redcar supersedes that of all those who think differently, including numerous trainers, jockeys, and probably most of Western Europe.<br>That you are ‘not the type to brag’ but have been the first to remind us, in both instances, when you have selected recent winners?<br> That the fact that you selected the winner gives you the inalieble right to continually post how smart you are, and how stupid everyone is who disagrees witrh you?<br> Then, in that case, you are right.<br> Happy!<br>
Well done Stav, both on your analysis of Redcar and the dignity with which you’ve responded to what I feel is unnecessary criticism.
By the way, are you the same Stav behind that excellent article on the EBA site about how to analyse race time and pace?
I like to look at draw stats, and like someone else mentioned on this thread, there needs to be a logical explanation behind it. Then they can become quite meaningful. Also like EC (I think) pointed out, its not to say the others cant win. Its just a case of it being a few pounds tougher to win.
Stav, as I was so tempted to look into fav stats at banded courses, (due to us discussing it ‘elsewhere’), I think your wrong about Redcar fav stats. The reason is, that Redcar is a wide course and therefore has more runners, so the favs wont win as often as at narrower courses. If you restrict the field size in your fav test, I’m sure it will show the course to be pretty fair, in comparison to others.
stav,
Excellent work.
I have always been of the opinion that the draw didn’t matter too much at Redcar, but you have proved that theory to be wrong (unless last year was a statistical blip, which I doubt). In future, I will take this bias into account on Redcar’s straight course. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the races pan out this season.
Your stats will probably go back further than mine Stav. <br>I went back to 1998 inclusive, 14 runners or less.
With all races there were 18 courses with a lower SR, two with the same, and 17 with a higher SR.
With HCP’s only my stats came out at 17 courses with a lower SR, 1 the same, and 19 higher.
It just didnt appear to be that bad to me. Maybe the recent stats mean more, just asuming that punters are better informed these days.
I get what you’re saying about the unknown draw bias not affecting the SP and therefore not creating as many winning favs as it possibly should. I think that will certainly be be a contributing factor.
The only other thing that I can think of, off hand, is that due to Redcar being wide, perhaps horses get a bit freaked by that fact. They are herd animals, and being spread right across the track might just put some of them off their game a touch. Maybe its a bit of both.
I cant remember who said it, but there is a draw bias there, and I agree that its more than likely due to the fact that the outside horses are stuck on the outside, so waste time getting into the herd or run on their own (to a degree). Which would tie in with what I’ve just said nicley.
I’m going to have a look at SR’s at wide courses now:biggrin:
Yesterday’s results at Redcar showed that on genuine good ground there was a definite bias in favour of those drawn high, even though they reportedly raced up the middle of the track(as they also did at the Lincoln meeting). I had been persuaded by stav’s excellent argument in favour of a low draw bias, but it seems the jury will have to look at more evidence before a verdict is reached. Maybe the going(soft on Lincoln day) plays a decisive role, favouring low on easy ground.
Another high-drawn loser in the Lincoln at Redcar lobs up.
This one Zomerlust 16/1 in the 15.10 at Ponte :cool:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.