- This topic has 30 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
So a horse that wants the ground firm gets drawn on the low side and has his chance ruined by the effects of watering. Leave it as it is. If trainers are annoyed with the draw bias [the bookmaking fraternity shouldn’t get a say in this] they can easily enter there horses elsewhere, surely?
Yes, I think that’s a very good suggestion, Cav.
What would be the best time to release such a bulletin?
The whole concept of watering to reduce a draw bias is pants. How far over do you water? What happens if you water selectively then it rains?
Just another example, like this ridiculous reserve malarkey, of the owners and trainers coming before the punter. Ask any punter and they’ll be avoiding Beverley like the plague since all this removing bias stuff started- nothing wrong with a bias that’s consistent as long as everyone knows about it. Badly drawn horses will have another day.I have to agree with Librettist and Carvill’s.
Most of us are in this game because we believe that, by diligent assessment of all the known variables, we can arrive at a selection that has the best chance of winning, or the best chance of winning at a price. What we have with selective watering is a huge unquantifiable randomiser thrown on top of our deliberations.
That’s fine if you want to treat racing as if it were roulette, no good at all if you prefer to think of it, like a crossword, as a puzzle to be solved.
I, for one, can no longer countenance betting on Beverley races because of this.
Chris
Rob
05/04/08 Beverley (GOOD – Goingstick unavailable; Watering to remove draw bias)
Thats all thats required. No searching through internet forums, clippings libraries or other detective work for a customer trying to have a reasonably informed punt
This would be better than not telling anyone what you were up to, but I have to agree with the original poster – selective watering across a track has no place in a sport that wants to be taken seriously as a punting medium.
PaulO wrote :
So the apparent low number draw bias at Southwell over 5F is just a statistical blip then?
Yes, it’s just an urban myth, my mate says that at Southwell, the middle draws are the ones to concentrate on cos the tractors with the hoes and rakes overlap and that bit gets done twice making it faster
There is no real draw bias on AW tracks
PaulO wrote :
So the apparent low number draw bias at Southwell over 5F is just a statistical blip then?
Yes, it’s just an urban myth, my mate says that at Southwell, the middle draws are the ones to concentrate on cos the tractors with the hoes and rakes overlap and that bit gets done twice making it faster
There is no real draw bias on AW tracks
OK if you look at the all time results at Southwell over 5f there is a perceived bias towards low.
However if you look at results for just 2007/8 then there is a bias towards low / middle. The figures also show a negative bias towards high numbers.
There is also a strong high draw bias over 5f at Kempton Park which has, interestingly, become more pronounced in 2008 (albeit with only a 33 race sample so far this year), as a % term it is almost as high as the Chester low draw bias.
Granted Lingfield and Wolves seem pretty fair with no real bias and it is too early to make any view on Great Leighs.
So generally there is no bias, however there is evidence to suggest a bias on some courses at some distances.
fair comment Paul, I know there are small and changing variances across the draws at some AW tracks but my argument is that these are not real draw biases but purely the variances you would get even on a perfectly uniform suface laid out in a nice straight course, which would happen because there is no guarantee the better and worst horses or horses ‘ready to win’ could ever be randomly drawn equally across a track
Almost Impossible to do.
If a watering policy puts more water on one part of the course than another. How do they know just how much more is needed?
After a few races there will probably be an advantage noticeable. Whether that will be on the rail, middle or wide.
It just means it is impossible for punters to work a race out until halfway through a card.
This also leads to a possibility of only the watering team knowing where the best ground is. Could be awkward to say the least.
Mark
Value Is EverythingI have to say I am a great advocate of letting nature take it’s course and not producing "false" going just to keep people happy.
If it is hot and sunny then the going gets firm – so be it – there are horses who are happy on firm going.
The only justification for watering is for safety reasons – i.e if the going is going to be hard and then the watering should never be used to produce ground any less than good to firm.
Watering to change ground from good to firm to good, for example, should not be allowed.
In terms of selective watering watering to eliminate a draw bias, whilst it may sound good in theory it is fraught with danger and, I would suggest, impossible to get right.
The draw bias is well known in all nearly cases and it is generally factored into the prices – indeed there are times whne it can work in a punters favour where a horse has a bigger price due to a perceived poor draw, yet the beast still has the ability, or the jockey the tactical nouse, to overcome the draw and win.
Is there evidence that Beverley did actually water or try to artificially influence the going. Wasn’t there very heavy rain in the area in the intervening period bewteen the meetings which produced the variations in draw bias – resulting in ground altering from GTF to GTS?
- Total Posts 17716
Corm
I believe it rained between Friday and Saturday which did change the ground, but Glenn’s point also refers to the Friday meeting, run on an official g/f.
I wonder what the watering team have been doing at Beverley today?
If they water the far side differently to the middle and near side, who is checking on them?
If someone knows they have watered one part much less than the other parts, it is possible to make big money.
All they have to do is back those who’s draw is favoured by their watering to win on the exchanges, before racing.
As soon as the draw advantage is seen, those now favoured will be backed in to shorter prices and those unfavoured drift.
They can then lay those horses already backed at lower prices, for a certain profit.
Is anyone checking for abnormal betting patterns as to draw bias?
This in my opinion is asking for problems.
Mark
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.