- This topic has 21 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Did you know that…
Year 2000 – Number of Flat Turf Handicaps run = 1625
Year 2000 – Number of Flat Turf Handicaps run with 16+ runners = 532
Year 2000 – Percentage of Flat Turf Handicaps with 16+ runners = 32.73%Year 2007 – Number of Flat Turf Handicaps run = 2026
Year 2007 – Number of Flat Turf Handicaps run with 16+ runners = 241
Year 2007 – Percentage of Flat Turf Handicaps with 16+ runners = 11.89%The figure for 2008 so far is 10.52%
A staggering 275.27% reduction in the number of first 4 placed handicaps from 2000 compared to 2007.
What a pity our newly found ¨punters pals¨ from last week in the media dont highlight this a bit more. It was happening right under their snouts at Epsom.
I think you really need to put it into perspective, which your topic title clearly does not.
Change it please.
Proud? CR’s putting an unecessary gloss on things by restricting himself to the turf.
Check out the all-weather and you’ll find things are much much worse.
It’s not difficult to shape the figures to match the agenda….if you’re backing win-only, I’d counter your argument with the suggestion that it’s never been a better time to be a punter.
Should the reduction not be calculated using the original figure from 2000, making the ‘staggering’ percentage significantly less than 275?
I think you really need to put it into perspective, which your topic title clearly does not.
Change it please.
Your welcome.
Should the reduction not be calculated using the original figure from 2000, making the ‘staggering’ percentage significantly less than 275?
Sorry LGR, I dont understand what your getting at? Could you do a calculation to illustrate please?
It’s not difficult to shape the figures to match the agenda….if you’re backing win-only, I’d counter your argument with the suggestion that it’s never been a better time to be a punter.
Could you explain figure "shaping" please BSB? Backing win only and taking an early price with all the reduction factors, I’ve never seen it is as bad these last 2 months. I operate a highturnover and the margins are already tight which I accept but crippling when you add daily 30%+ non runner deductions on top.
It’s not difficult to shape the figures to match the agenda….if you’re backing win-only, I’d counter your argument with the suggestion that it’s never been a better time to be a punter.
Only because of the advent of exchanges surely? Methinks they didn;t have the same influence over these changes as the big bookies..
Not that today is different to any other day but a nice hatchet job on the 8 and 16 runner handicaps again today.
I’m not really getting this…
Is the implication that the bookmakers are sabotaging these races by paying trainers not to run their horses?
Sorry for being thick…
I’m not really getting this…
Is the implication that the bookmakers are sabotaging these races by paying trainers not to run their horses?
Sorry for being thick..
I wouldnt have a clue BennyB, all I know is that it happens almost every day in the ¨wrong races¨ and it needs to be highlighted.
Cav – do you have any stats on the proportion of declared runners which come out of these races (as against those coming out of other races)?
I wonder if it’s just that we notice non-runners more when they affect the each way terms.
I dont have any non runner stats BennyB. From daily observation non runners at the all weather tracks where the field size is limited to less than 16 always seem to have far fewer non runners.
Flatstats did a very good report on the issue a while back, backed up with hard data from their database.
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/non_runners_1.html
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/non_runners_2.html
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/non_runners_3.htmlTheir conclusions make very interesting reading.
As recently as yesterday for example (June 11th), the Kempton All Weather meeting had 4 non runners across the card, while 7 turf handicaps had their place terms reduced when 25 declared runners ended up not running.
I dont have any non runner stats BennyB. From daily observation non runners at the all weather tracks where the field size is limited to less than 16 always seem to have far fewer non runners.
Consistent ground conditions surely would be a cause of fewer non-runners all weather though.
I would hazard a guess that there are a number of factors at work here. I think I’m right in saying safety limits have been generally reduced over the last few years. The result of that is that the maximum possible number of runners is lower at the declaration stage so fewer non-runners post declaration are required to push the field size below 16. Secondly, the 48 hour declarations have resulted in more non-runners. Thirdly, the increase in the fixture list has meant that entries are spread more thinly with less chance of large field sizes. Finally, the increase in AW fixtures has skewed the stats as the AW courses have smaller safety limits. I’m certainly not a fan of conspiracy theories in general and the idea that the bookmakers prefer small fields is open to serious challenge. Given the choice, I’m sure the bookies would prefer that every race on the card was a 20 runner handicap.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.