Read all sorts of commentaries and tips across a range of racing disciplines on the most popular horse racing blog in Britain, from staff and guest writers.

Draw Bias 2022: Part 4, Negative Bias

/in /by

In this article I will discuss another angle that can be deployed in our betting, and that is negative draw bias, writes Dave Renham. I think the phrase was coined in the late '90s by Russell Clarke when he used to write regularly in betting magazines. [He has since contributed an excellent eight part series on the betting markets here on geegeez, which can be read here].

What is negative draw bias?

Negative draw bias highlights a horse or horses that have run well from a poor draw and, hence, in theory have run much better than their finishing position may have initially indicated. From there, one would potentially have a ‘horse to follow’ and worth backing soon afterwards when granted a more favourable position in the starting gates.

As with many things in racing, negative draw bias is not quite as simple as it sounds. There are potential issues with this idea – for example, once we have a ‘horse to follow’ we have the tricky decision of how long to continue supporting the horse in the future? One run? Two? Until it wins? What if it loses four or five races? There clearly is no ‘correct’ answer’ to this question.

We also need to think about under what circumstances we back the horse. Should we back it blindly? Or only under similar conditions? What if it is drawn poorly again the next few times it races?

A third question to consider is, "can we be completely sure the horse has actually run well against a draw bias?" If the horse has been beaten a neck over 5f at Chester from stall 14 then we can be as good as 100% certain. However, generally, races - especially big field affairs on a straight course - where one side of the draw seems to be strongly advantaged over the other. There is a case to say that biases that occur like this can be down to a pace bias (i.e. the fast horses were all congregated on one side of the track and therefore made that 'mini race' quicker) than a draw bias but, regardless of which, it is likely some form of ‘bias’ is in play.

Examples of negative draw bias

It's time to look at some examples of negative draw bias in action. I want to look first at a race at York over the 1 mile trip. This course and distance is in 7th position in my top 10 draw bias courses which I looked at in a previous article with low draws holding an edge over middle draws, and high draws at a big disadvantage. The race was run at the backend of 2021:

 

 

This race had a maximum field of 20 and, as can be seen, three of the five lowest draws filled the top three positions. Two middle draws in 9 and 12 came 4th and 5th and then the best of the high draws, Another Batt (drawn 20) and Ouzo (19) came 6th and 7th. This looks a solid example of Another Batt and Ouzo running well considering their negative draws. In fact, draws 19 and 20 are the worst of the lot being stuck ‘out in the car park’.

From a negative draw bias perspective, both Another Batt and Ouzo look to be horses to follow. So how did they fare after this good run? Well, next time out Another Batt went on to win at Donny:

 

 

He was joint favourite that next day, so clearly others noticed the good run at York from a poor draw. Even so, he won fairly comfortably and 9/2 are decent enough odds. Ouzo, meanwhile, has yet to run since but may be worth noting. He was bought for 62,000 guineas in the Newmarket Autumn sale and has moved to Jamie Osborne's stable.

Now, of course not all good runs from poor draws will produce next time out winners. So this goes back to the earlier question about what to do when you find one of these negative draw bias horses, and for how long do we support it, and under what conditions? I said earlier that there is no ‘correct’ answer. What we decide will simply be down to personal preference. From my perspective I tend to keep an eye on these horses for three or four more runs. That does not mean I will back them every time and, once they have won, I tend to cross them off my list. Why three or four runs?

Well, as mentioned, conditions in subsequent races will influence their chances. They may been drawn badly again; they may be in a highly competitive 20-runner race; the going may not ideal, and so on. Also, if they do not return to the track relatively quickly, as in the case of Ouzo, then that gives another potential cause for concern. So there are many factors that will make me think twice about backing the qualifying horse, even though sometimes I will miss a good winner by being more selective.

A system from the '90s

There is another reason I will keep the horses on my radar for a few subsequent runs and that is down to a system I used back in the 1990s. This system was based on negative draw bias and the optimum strategy for this particular approach was backing such runners on their next three starts, but stopping if/when the horse was a winner. It was very successful for a four or five year period, and it made me realise that these types of horses should not be immediately discarded if they ran poorly in the race following their negative draw bias run.

I mentioned at the beginning of this piece that big field races on straight courses can produce what seems to be a draw bias but may actually be a pace bias (which, I guess, is a sort of moveable draw bias). Ascot is one such course where this happens on a fairly regular basis. A good example can be seen in the Royal Hunt Cup of 2020:

 

 

High draws dominated this race as you can see in the result above. Maydanny, who finished 7th, was the only low drawn horse to finish in the first eight. Now normally your eye would not be drawn (excuse the pun) to a horse that had finished outside the top six. However, there clearly was a bias occurring here, and Maydanny was first home on the disadvantaged far side.

Maydanny did not follow the script next time when beaten into fifth as an odds on favourite. However, on his second subsequent run this happened:

 

 

From a plum draw (for a front-running type) in stall 1, he destroyed an 18-runner field at Goodwood, winning by five lengths at odds of 5/1.

Looking back to the Royal Hunt Cup, the in-running comments were insightful, too. Maydanny was the only horse to race on the far side out of the first eight finishers. Therefore, on a straight course especially, it is a good idea to look at the race comments in conjunction with the draw positions for the first few runners home in a race.

Here is another example, where I would argue the race comments are more clear-cut than the draw numbers. The first five home in the Britannia handicap at Royal Ascot in 2021 were as follows:

 

 

If we purely look at the numerical draw positions of the first five finishers, we can see that higher draws seem to have been favoured, but on first glance we may not think the draw bias was hugely significant. It may be a different matter if four of the first five home had been drawn 24 or higher and the other runner had been drawn 1; the numbers are shouting out as us in a case like that. However, if we read the ‘in running’ comments for this race we can see that fourth-placed Dubai Honour was the only one of the first five to race on the far side. The other four raced near side. This fact coupled with the draw positions make this look like a good run from a poor draw.

Dubai Honour was a horse that we could have added to our negative draw bias list and if we did, he would have rewarded our faith next time out, getting up to win by a head at 11/2. Indeed, he subsequently won a pair of Group 2's in France before running second in the Group 1 Champion Stakes back at Ascot on British Champions Day!

 

 

The next two home on the far side were Mithras (unraced afterwards in UK, renamed Turin Redsun and now racing in Hong Kong) and Qaader, who won at 8/1 two starts later.

Identifying negative draw bias horses (and a shortcut)

I have picked out three examples of negative draw bias but there are plenty more I could have shared with you. Not all will follow the winning script, but a reasonable proportion will win within three or four races.

Ultimately, to pick up on all potential negative draw bias qualifiers, we need to look at results on a daily basis and then keep a track of them, which can be done on Geegeez using the excellent Tracker tool. However, there is a possible shortcut for those of you who simply do not have the time to do that. It won’t likely be as accurate but it will be a quicker way to determine negative draw bias type selections.

What we can do is deploy a rule-based racing system. I discussed numerous racing systems in a recent set of articles so combining that approach with the draw provides some gratifying symmetry.

Here are the basic rules of the system:

  1. Last time out (LTO) race was a handicap with 10+ runners
  2. Horse must have been drawn 10 or higher LTO
  3. Horse must have finished 2nd, 3rd, or 4th LTO

This system is then to be used where the LTO course and distance was one of the following:

 

 

Now, for the eagle eyed reader, you may have noticed that my top 10 draw biased courses from 2016 to 2021 are in the list. In addition there are some of the 'near misses' I published with that top 10, as well as Dundalk over 5f. It is very difficult to win from stall 10 or higher at any of these course/distance combinations which is why I chose them.

I looked at results going right back to 2009 – essentially this was to get a bigger individual sample for each course and distance. Combining all of the qualifiers from all of those courses in their next starts we get these bottom line figures:

 

 

Considering this is a very raw type of system these combined results are impressive. It should be noted that I chose the course and distances before I checked the results so there is no back fitting here. Indeed, five of the 14 made a loss, so I could easily have manipulated the stats by ignoring those courses to improve matters – but that is not my style.

For the record, those that made a loss were horses that ran last time out at Chester 7f, Kempton 6f, Goodwood 7f, Goodwood 1m and Pontefract 1m. The other nine combinations were all profitable.

I then thought it would be a good idea to compare the strike rates of the negative draw bias system horses with ALL horses that finished 2nd, 3rd, or 4th last time out in 10+ runner handicaps (2009-2021); not just the win strike rate, but the placed strike rate as well (placed SR% being win and placed runners combined). Here is the comparison:

 

 

A better absolute strike rate of nearly 2% in terms of wins, which is almost 14% better comparatively; while the placed results show a similar pattern:

 

 

Over 3% absolute difference in the placed strike rates, and an 8% comparative improvement. It's satisfying to see increased strike rates in both groups, which adds confidence to the basic system concept and the results thereof.

This system approach should not be time consuming. There will be far fewer races to check over the course of a year compared with worrying about checking the results of all 10+ runner handicaps. Indeed you will only need to check the day’s results when one of these track and trip combo's has rnu a handicap with ten or more runners. Also the system is only concerned with the very next run which means once a horse has run again you simply strike it off the list.

Of course this method is easily adapted: for example, you may want to change last time out position of 2nd to 4th to a distance beaten figure (in lengths, or lengths per furlong - perhaps using the Geegeez Px coloured dots on the left side of the Full Form result rows); you may want to change draw 10 to draw 8; you may want to keep qualifying horses for more than one run, and so on. Ultimately, there is lots of scope to change the approach to suit your style.

Keep in mind (of course) that, as we know, a system is simply that – it is not a magic bullet and just because 2009 to 2021 produced a profit, it doesn’t mean results will continue to be positive in the future, or that there won't be losing runs. This system, however, does follow logical negative draw bias ideas so one would hope it has a sporting chance of repeating its past success in the near future at least.

I hope this article has sparked your interest in negative draw bias and please share your thoughts or personal experiences in the comments below. I'd love to hear from you.

- DR

p.s. The recent Victoria Cup, again at Ascot, saw the highest three (out of 27!) stalls combine for a £5208.10 trifecta dividend - keep an eye out for draw bias angles, both positive and negative!

Monday Musings: Paging Richard’s Granny!

/in /by

One early morning a few years ago in the days when I still bought a Racing Post rather than access the online version, my regular source did not have a copy, writes Tony Stafford. Not to be outdone I jumped in the car and made a stop at Tesco’s big store at Bromley-By-Bow in between Hackney Wick and Bow.

With only one till open I took my copy and, from memory, a BLT sandwich and went to pay. The senior lady with her full Cockney accent, looked and said: “Oh, you like racing? My grandson’s in racing. He’s a jockey. He’s Richard Kingscote!”

Now more normally you might expect to find grandparents of jockeys to have farms in Limerick or Wiltshire or to have ridden themselves. I doubt Grandma Kingscote – it could just as easily have been Piggott, Eddery or Buick but I think that unlikely - woke to the sounds of horses’ nostrils snorting in her early days which I guessed might have been, like mine, in the East End of London with bomb craters from World War II lingering still around every corner.

I mentioned that meeting to Richard soon after and wish I’d have gone into his heritage a little more. I bet granny wouldn’t have expected her grandson to have made the remarkable change in his source and scene of employment, so secure did the Michael Owen/Andrew Black/Tom Dascombe and Kingscote combination appear then and for a few years after.

Kingscote jumped first, moving south to pick up good rides from Newmarket stables, notably for Sir Michael Stoute, increasingly denied use of his long-term stable jockey Ryan Moore by his lucrative, Classic-bountiful Coolmore job.

Then Dascombe clearly got the tin-tack and he now operates with a team of 13 in Lambourn. Whether he can reinvigorate his career will be a serious challenge, though his interview on Luck On Sunday yesterday related that he’s up for it. All a jockey needs when forced to make a move is a saddle, a pair of boots, an agent and a car to take him to as many stables as he can to ride out and make an impression. Would-be trainers must (for starters) convince the BHA that they have the financial resources to set up and carry their (hopefully) growing business.

It helps if your dad was/is a trainer and he can help you along in the manner of a Crisford, Gosden, Johnston or even a Ferguson. So much more power then to the elbows of such as Boughey and Clover. George went close again yesterday when 1,000 Guineas heroine, Cachet, made a brave attempt to follow up in the French 1,000 at Longchamp, finishing second to the Mikel Delzangles-trained Mangoustine, ridden by the remarkable Gerald Mosse.

Half an hour later the Godolphin blue (Charlie Appleby brand) followed their Newmarket 2,000 one-two with Coroebus and Native Trail by sending out Modern Games under William Buick to win the counterpart French colts’ Classic.

Unraced since winning the hotly-contested Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Turf at Del Mar last November, the son of Dubawi came home strongly and adds his name to the already formidable team for the Boys in Blue in the major mile races.

They will still have to go some to match the year-older Baaeed in that division after the William Haggas four-year-old brought his tally to seven from seven when winning the Lockinge at Newbury. He started that career less than a year ago on the same course and looks set to be put right to the top of the official rankings after this display.

To be more accurate, Baaeed didn’t just win, he made mincemeat of a strong field of milers and the disdainful three-and-a-bit lengths by which he beat the Saeed Bin Suroor-trained runner-up Real World (a Coolmore-type sighter?) suggests even Classic form later in the season from the best of the younger generation will not be enough to stop him.

The big two power-houses are as strong as ever, but Baaeed’s trainer, William Haggas, is making ever more forceful strides in their pursuit and Baaeed was one of 13 winners for his Newmarket stable in the past fortnight. If you don’t enjoy backing short-priced favourites, never mind, just make sure you take your place early on day one at Royal Ascot when this potential world champion will be the stand-out in the Queen Anne Stakes.

But Richard Kingscote has matters more immediate on his mind after last week’s Al Basti Equiworld Dubai Dante Stakes at York. Riding Sir Michael Stoute’s Desert Crown on only his second racecourse appearance, he brought the Nathaniel colt home well clear of a strong field to clinch what is often the best of the Derby trials.

Ryan Moore was third in the race on the Galileo colt Bluegrass and that colt is sure to do better in time.  They were split by the Johnstons’ Royal Patronage who had run a reasonable race in the 2,000 Guineas, not far behind the principals having attempted to force the pace.

When Nathaniel made his racecourse debut at the Newmarket July meeting in the evening maiden race also chosen by Sir Henry Cecil for Frankel, both colts being by Galileo, there was only a half length between them at the line.

Frankel never lost a race; Nathaniel did, but also won plenty, including the King George and Eclipse at Group 1 level. He has been a great servant to Newsells Park stud where his fee for 2022 was only £15,000 but one eternal distinction is that his daughter Enable was probably the best filly to race in Europe in this century.

Now he could be getting his first Derby winner with a Tattersalls Book 2 purchase, admittedly bought for the respectable figure of 280,000gns. How this year’s Book 2 catalogue will celebrate him, Derby success or not!

Desert Crown has been brought along with typical patience by Sir Michael, who has five Epsom Derby winners to his credit, the last three since he was honoured by his home country Barbados for services unconnected to his profession. Ryan Moore rode the last of them, Workforce, in 2010 and was also on the Aidan O’Brien winner Ruler Of The World three years later.

The Derby can often throw up unexpected winning jockeys and you only have to go back to last year when Adam Kirby was the popular beneficiary of William Buick’s decision to ride third-placed Hurricane Lane, leaving Kirby to fill in on easy winner, Adayar.

O’Brien and Charlie Appleby between them have won the last five editions of the Blue Riband and only once has the stable first string been on the right one. That was Buick on Masar in 2018. Ryan has had to watch on from behind as first Padraig Beggy (on Wings Of Eagles), Seamie Heffernan on Anthony Van Dyck and, most recently, Emmet McNamara (Serpentine) won the spoils.

To think that Beggy and McNamara together have ridden as many Epsom Derby winners as the flawless Ryan Moore. As I mentioned last week, Ryan’s riding has been exemplary this season and I think we can expect a ride of supreme skill on Stone Age on June 4.

I have no idea whether Richard Kingscote’s grandma remains in good health. I hope she does and, even more fervently, that she has been gathered up by all the excitement that Richard will almost certainly be on the favourite that day; even more so that she can be there, because I’d love to meet her again!

One horse I would hope turns up on that day is Saturday’s stylish Newmarket sprint winner, Dusky Lord, who came through the eye of the proverbial needle to win the finale after a six-month absence.

I was happy to be representing part-owner Jonathan Barnett and, given the way in which he came through to make it three wins from six, I think this previous Brighton winner could win the Dash, a race I believe Raymond Tooth should have won with Catfish ten years ago.

The fact this remains the fastest-ever electronically-timed five-furlong race is a major achievement for John Best, who saddled the 50/1 winner Stone Of Folca to record a time of 53.69 seconds, which has never been beaten. That works out as an average speed for the entire trip of 41.9 miles per hour.

Catfish stayed on strongly after a tardy start to finish third in the big field, beaten for second by Andrew Balding’s Desert Law. But when Mikael Barzalona returned, he said: “She was unlucky. My saddle slipped at the start and the way she finished if I could have ridden her properly, I’m certain she would have won.”

David Egan reckoned after Saturday that Dusky Lord definitely needed the outing after his six-month absence. Now the Dash is back as a 100 grand race with half of that going to the winning owners. That’s worth going for, don’t you agree Roger?

- TS

Gold Nuggets: York Biases

/in /by

In this edition of Gold Nuggests, I'll focus on York's Dante meeting and, specifically, a few biases that often show themselves on the slightly quirkier than first meets the eye Knavesmire track.

The running order is as follows, so feel free to skip to the parts of interest to you:

00:00 Intro
00:40 New odds service
05:00 Course guides / familiarisation
08:15 York 1m4f Bias
09:40 York 6f Bias
13:00 York 1m Bias
15:45 York 7f Bias

Also, remember the little cog icon bottom right from which you can adjust the playback speed of my steady drawl!

Draw Bias 2022: Part 3b [Top 10 Biases, #5-1]

/in /by

In the previous article I shared my personal views regarding some of the top draw biases in the UK and Ireland, focusing there specifically on the 10th ‘strongest’ to the 6th, writes Dave Renham. In this follow-up piece, I will reveal my top 5.

It’s important to say that these thoughts are mine and mine alone and, of course, there will be people who disagree with my order. That is how it should be; if we all had the same opinions as regards to horse racing it would be pretty boring! Also, how would we get an edge over other punters if we all thought the same?!

It was noted last time that just because a course and distance has a draw bias, there is no guarantee that the favoured section of the stalls will produce long term profits. Indeed, sometimes there may be value in the ‘worst’ section of the draw. This can happen when the market shortens up the better drawn horses too much. When this happens the prices of other runners get bigger to compensate. Ultimately a 3/1 shot will win more often than a 20/1 shot, but if 3/1 shots win 20 races in every 100, and a 20/1 shots wins 6 races in every 100 then you’d only make a profit on the horses priced 20/1. Successful betting is about value; backing horses that have a better chance of winning than their odds imply.

For each course and distance I will share the raw draw stats, and then dig deeper looking for other angles such as the going or when the number of runners gets close to the maximum. The draw stats data comes from the last six full flat seasons (2016 to 2021) and, as ever, the initial focus will be 8+ runner handicaps. The profit and loss figures are calculated to industry SP. I will also share Betfair SP figures when they make a significant difference. As with last time, as a bonus, I will share some ‘near misses’ that just failed to make the top 10. In fact, let’s start with those near misses:

Near Misses

Gowran Park 7f (good or firmer)

The first Irish course to be discussed is Gowran Park. This seven furlongs course and distance has shown a low bias for some time. More recently, ground staff at the track have introduced a false rail which may change things a little over time. At this point, it is too early to say how much of an affect it will have.

Let me first share the win percentages on all going for each third of the draw. Firstly a look at all races from 2016 to 2021:

 

 

Low draws have a definite edge during this overall time frame. They are drawn on the inside so no surprises there. This is not a huge bias, but it is significant. Here's what happens if we split this into 'three-yearly' chunks:

 

 

The more recent trio of seasons - the false rail was introduced in 2020 - does not seem to have affected the lower draws, but it seems that higher draws are now becoming more competitive against the middle. The PRB figures for each period give us more useful information:

 

 

These figures seem to re-affirm that low draws are enjoying the same sort of advantage they have in the past.

The bias, though, does seem to be stronger on better ground. Here are the splits for 8+ runner handicaps raced on good ground or firmer (2016-2021):

 

Gowran Park 7f fast ground draw bias

 

Horses drawn in the lowest stalls have won 50% of these races compared with just 13.9% for those drawn high. The place percentages show a very strong edge also, as do the A/E, IV and PRB figures.

Also going back further the 2009 to 2015 stats look as strong:

 

 

There is excellent correlation with the more recent data set which adds confidence to what we have uncovered so far.

It was noted in my previous piece that at some draw-biased courses exotic bets such as tricasts or forecasts can prove profitable. This is the case here, too. If you had permed the four lowest drawn horses in full cover tricasts you would have made a small profit of around 6p in the £. The tote trifecta variant would once again have been a far better option as you would have more than doubled your money! An ROI of 120% to be precise. Isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing?

To conclude, Gowran Park was close to making the Top 10 and one could make a sound case for it actually being in there. For the Top 10, though, I wanted to stick to what I perceived to be the strongest pure biases without any extra considerations such as going.

Tipperary 5f

A second Irish course in the 'near miss' squad is Tipperary over 5f. The stats are shown below:

 

Tipperary 5f draw bias

 

It is a small data set but all areas correlate strongly in terms of high draws having a good edge. The period 2009 to 2015 is equally supportive of high draws.

Clearly opportunities will be limited, but that is certainly a bias to be aware of.

Catterick 5f  (good to soft or softer)

Catterick is final stop off on my 'near miss' list. When the going gets softer, higher draws start to take control. Here are the figures for races on good to soft or softer ground:

 

Catterick 5f soft ground draw bias

 

The reason high draws tend to do well is that on softer ground jockeys often make a beeline to the stands side rail which appears quicker than the far rail under these conditions. A good example of this was seen in the 15 runner 5f handicap on 26th October 2021:

 

 

On this occasion, the jockeys headed towards the near side and, as can be seen, five of the six highest drawn runners filled the first five places.

Looking at all the races run on good to soft or softer, the three highest drawn runners have all made blind profit to not only BSP, but industry SP as well.

 

 

These are excellent returns across the board. In addition, combining the three highest draws in £1 combination straight forecasts would have yielded a profit of £62.37 (ROI +31.5%). Tricasts / trifectas with the highest four draws combined also would have produced a profit.

Before moving on, it should be pointed out that the bias gets stronger as the going gets softer (soft or heavy ground), although sample is quite small:

 

Catterick 5f draw bias, soft or heavy going

 

So keep an eye on the weather before racing at Catterick. This draw bias to high stalls on good to soft or softer looks a very playable one.

From the near misses - drumroll, please - it’s time for the top five!

5th position – Goodwood 1m

Goodwood over a mile has long been considered a track and trip where draw bias can play a major role. The shame from a punting perspective is that there are very few qualifying races each year. Hence we have a small sample but one with a clear edge to lower draws:

 

Goodwood mile draw bias

 

Low draws have a positive edge in all categories and I now want to look at the individual stall positions and how they have fared:

 

Goodwood mile draw bias by individual stall position

 

Normally with small samples I tend not to look at individual draws / stalls, but these data set show a cut-off point at stall 5. Horses drawn 1 to 5 have won 18 races from 115 runners (SR 15.7%); horses drawn 6 or higher have won just five races from 181 runners (SR 2.8%). This strongly suggests that horses drawn 1 to 5 have been massively favoured.

To conclude, while there are not many qualifying races each year, clearly when there are they are definitely worth a few minutes of our time.

4th position – Goodwood 7f

We drop a furlong at Goodwood to see a similar low draw bias to the mile trip. One advantage of the 7f distance is there are many more races each year as these stats show:

 

Goodwood 7f draw bias

 

We can see strong figures across the board here for low draws. This low draw bias has been evident at Goodwood for most of the last 30 years!

It is worth noting the bias has looked less strong in the most recent three seasons although the PRB figure is still 0.54 for low versus 0.44 for high during that time. That might be down to the fact that the going has been a bit softer in more recent seasons. In general, Goodwood biases over the years have been less prevalent on softer going. The stats back this up when we look at the good or firmer data from 2016 to 2021. Under faster conditions it can be seen that the low draw bias does seem to get stronger:

 

Goodwood 7f fast ground draw bias

 

All categories (win%, place%, A/E, IV, PRB) see an improvement for low draws on better ground as compared with the 'all races' data; and, all categories deteriorate slightly for high draws.

In terms of wins, which essentially is key, the draw win percentages for each third on good ground or firmer can be nicely illustrated by the following pie chart:

 

 

Six in every 10 races have been won by the lowest third of the draw under these firmer going conditions.

The 7f bias also seems to strengthen as the field size increases. In fields of 14 or more runners (all going), the draw stats for each third read as follows:

 

 

Once again we see a 60% win strike rate for low draws, but higher draws perform very poorly. We have seen this before when analysing round course biases. In big fields high draws are likely forced wide meaning they have to run further. Alternatively they can track to the inside, but then they will be faced with several horses to pass in the straight potentially needing good luck in running. It should also be noted that tracking to the inside early on losing ground also. Goodwood has a camber in the straight off which many hard luck stories are founded.

In conclusion, Goodwood over 7f has traditionally seen lower draws having the advantage. This seems to get more potent on good ground or firmer, and when the field size gets to 14+. Unsurprisingly, combining firmer ground and a bigger field accentuates the low advantage and the high disadvantage:

 

Goodwood 7f low draw bias on quick ground in big fields

 

3rd position – Pontefract 1m

Moving into the top 3 and we travel north to Pontefract and its 1 mile trip. This is another round course bias where low draws dominate:

 

Pontefract 1m draw bias

 

This is a very strong bias but, as I noted in my first article in the series, punters and bookmakers alike are much more aware of the strength of the inside edge now. Consequently, prices on the lowest drawn horses have contracted considerably in recent years. Nevertheless, the two lowest stalls have both made a profit to SP (combined profit of 15p in the £, and 21p in the £ at BSP). This is due to the fact that the two lowest drawn runners have won a remarkable 31 races between them. That means nearly 44% of all races have been won by the two stalls closest to the inside rail.

Races with big fields are rare but when we get to 13+ runners the bias seems to strengthen further:

 

Pontefract 1m big field draw bias

 

Yes, I appreciate the sample is only 18 races, but low draws have won or placed four times more often than high draws (31 to 8). This is an eye-catching stat, as is the 0.62 to 0.40 PRB advantage to low draws over high. I think one can be fairly confident the bias does indeed gain potency in big field races.

Moving onto ground conditions, and for races on soft or heavy going, low drawn runners have won 13 of the 22 races, with high draws claiming a single solitary score. Again it's quite a small sample but the trends are clear. A similar pattern can be seen from the data between 2009 and 2015.

Having reviewed all 71 handicap races over 1 mile with 8+ runners, I can report that the exotic bets have once again proved a winner. If you had backed the two lowest drawn horses in £1 reverse forecasts you would have earned a profit of £34.06 (ROI +19.9%). The reverse Tote Exacta returns were even better with £66.50 profit (ROI +46.8%). Perming the four lowest drawn runners in combination tricasts would have yielded a small 2.2% return, while the trifecta would have harvested a very impressive 52.8% return.

These types of bets are not for everyone and they come with a low strike rate coupled with a potentially big bookmaker’s margin, but for small stakes the potential returns can be worth it. One good pay-out can really boost the bank.

Pontefract over a mile has a strong low bias where the focus should be primarily on the two lowest drawn runners. Personally, I would avoid horses drawn 9 or higher – these runners have combined to produced just 6 winners from 199 runners, a measly 3% strike rate.

2nd position – Pontefract 1m 2f

Staying at Pontefract we move up two furlongs to the mile and a quarter trip. I looked at this bias briefly in my second article in this series using the racecourse map below to show readers there is an extra left handed turn at this trip helping low draws further:

 

 

The draw stats are strong as one would expect:

 

Pontefract 10f draw bias

 

At this distance compared to mile range, the market is not quite as aware of the edge low draws have, so finding past profitable angles ought to be possible. For a start, you would have made a blind profit to Betfair SP backing all four lowest drawn horses in the 39 races in the sample. Those 156 runners would have produced a profit of £23.73 to £1 level stakes equating to returns of just over 15p in the £. Amazing when you think about it really – backing four horses in every race for 39 races, and you would have made good money. The bottom four stalls accounted for 24 of the winners from 156 runners; stalls located five or more away from the inside rail accounted for 15 winners but from 242 runners.

Earlier, it was noted that the stats indicated that over a mile on soft or heavy ground the bias seems to get stronger. That theory is given extra confidence when we see the same pattern over this 1m 2f distance. It should be said there have only been 10 qualifying races on soft or heavy since 2016 but just look at the win percentages for each third of the draw:

 

 

Nine of the ten races in this small sample were won by low draws. In addition to that, the win and placed stats combined correlate strongly as we can see:

 

 

I am confident that on soft or heavy ground the bias gets more potent.

Moving back to the ‘all races’ stats, one remarkable fact is that the lowest five draws filled the first three places on no less than 11 occasions, two of which happened within an hour and a half of each other!

It should come as no surprise therefore that perming these five draws in tricasts and trifectas would have landed favourable returns. Perming five horses in all possible combinations of 1st, 2nd and 3rd amounts to a chunky 60 bets per race, so using small stakes of 10p per line (bet) makes sense, bringing in the 'per race' cost at £6. If we had done this perm using the tricast in all 39 races there would have been an outlay of £234, with £281.96 returned, giving us a profit of £47.90 (ROI +20.5%). As we have seen thus far, the trifecta tends to outdo the tricast bet, and it does it here - in style. Trifecta returns would have been £529.13 giving us a whopping profit of £295.13 (ROI +126.1%).

Pontefract over 1m 2f is a course and distance on which to keep a close eye from a draw perspective this year. It will be interesting to monitor the prices of the lower draws in the next couple of seasons; if they contract more, then profits will be harder to come by.

And, finally, it’s time for my number one draw bias in Britain and Ireland...

 

1st position – Chester 5f

Yes, I fully appreciate this is not a huge shocker, but I am confident about its status as the number 1 spot: the award goes to the minimum trip at Chester. This is despite the fact that they are moving the inside rail from time to time in an attempt to negate the bias. The rail movement seems to affect this shortest trip the least, and draw bias fans should stick to the minimum 5f trip and not include the extended 5½f range in considerations.

Here are the stats:

 

Chester 5f draw bias

 

As I've said, yes, the bias is well known, but as far as draw biases go, it is still the strongest. The problem, of course, is making a profit from this widely held awareness. I discussed in the first article in the series how the prices at Chester on low drawn runners have contracted in recent years. Ultimately, this is why it is hard to make profits at Chester any more. That is, low still wins as often as it ever did (give or take - see below), but the available prices are tighter these days.

Going back to how the rail movement may be affecting this minimum 5f  trip, if we compare the PRB figures from 2016 to 2018 with 2019 to 2021, we can start to see a slight weakening of the bias.

 

 

High draws seem to struggle just as much as ever, but middle draws are a little more competitive as a result of the false rail. All in all, though, low draws continue to enjoy a very significant edge.

In terms of running styles, a low draw coupled with a prominent run style, be it leading or tracking the pace, is a potent combination here as the image below illustrates.

 

Chester draw and pace bias heat map

 

We can see that the advantage of a low draw disappears if you race near the back early. Low draws that led early or raced prominently have been responsible for 16 winners from 59 runners (27% strike rate), which compares very well next to middle or high draws that raced mid division early or were held up – they have provided just 3 winners from 126 runners (2.4% strike rate).

The evidence is clear: combine a low draw with early pace over 5f at Chester and then you have a very effective combination.

With these five top draw bias courses, then, I've demonstrated my personal top ten UK and Irish draw biases, as well as a few 'bonus' also ran's. Please share your thoughts in the comments, especially if you think I’ve missed one. Thanks as always for reading, and good luck.

- DR

 

 

 

Monday Musings: Shocks on the Derby Trails

/in /by

So the age-old Derby formula will not be holding this year, writes Tony Stafford. Third in the 2,000 Guineas (well fourth it used to be, as I conceded last week) meant first in the Derby at Epsom, but Luxembourg is lame. He will therefore not be carrying the Coolmore/Westerberg colours into yet another very probable annexation of English racing’s most sought-after prize.

Just as well then that a legion of bench-warmers took the opportunity at Chester and Lingfield to step up into the principal positions. First it was Changingoftheguard, running all over Godolphin’s theretofore Derby second favourite, New London, in the Chester Vase. It was great to see a revitalised Ryan Moore dominating the entire three-day fixture with superlative tactical riding from start to finish.

Chester revealed Ryan back to his very best, remarkably so in the face of the continuing serious health problems of his younger brother Josh, which have brought universal messages of sympathy from all around the racing world.

Changingoftheguard won the Chester Vase by a wide margin and then, in picking up the Dee Stakes with Star Of India, the Ballydoyle team had already started stacking up the back-up squad for the first Saturday in June.

It’s probably worth mentioning that their other three runners at the meeting - the filly Thoughts Of June in the Cheshire Oaks (there’s a name to conjure with!), Temple Of Artemis in the three-year-old handicap on the Thursday, and a lone Friday runner, Cleveland, who picked up the Chester Cup almost as an after-thought - all also crossed the line in front.

Then on Saturday it was on to Lingfield for their Derby Trial and, faced by another Godolphin/Appleby/Buick favourite in Walk Of Stars, Ryan and his mount, United Nations, were comfortably the best on the day.

Paul Smith, son of Derrick, was quizzed at every call on Saturday (as was Kevin Buckley at Chester) as to where he thought the pecking order might now be behind Luxembourg, but that was before yesterday’s news that the favourite will not run. Now I’m sure if you were to ask Paul or Derrick Smith, or Michael Tabor, or John and the junior Magniers or Georg von Opel or even Peter Brant in whose colours he runs, they would all shout in unison, “Stone Age!”

Where did that colt suddenly appear from, you would be entitled to ask? Well, certainly not from the upper reaches of the Classic consciousness after his five winless, although not promise-free, runs as a juvenile.

They brought a couple of second places in Group races, notably a one-length defeat behind the James Ferguson-trained Kodiac colt El Bodegon in the Group 1 Criterium de Saint-Cloud over ten furlongs in testing ground in late October. If it proved Stone Age’s stamina credentials – as if they were ever in doubt – it certainly also hurried Ferguson into the upper stratum of international racing.

El Bodegon has yet to appear since, but he has a Dante entry at York this week and then is a 25-1 shot for the Derby. That makes him ten times the price of Stone Age after a 13-length reappearance win at Navan on March 22 and then a five-and-a-half length romp in the Derby Trial at Leopardstown yesterday.

Each successive winning triallist won with authority, with Changingoftheguard and Stone Age showing the most. It will shock nobody to learn that all four colts – and the Cheshire Oaks heroine, too, are by Galileo, his famed Classic-winning genes still as effective a year on from his death at the age of 23.

Talking of Chester, only one of the five O’Brien winners was not by Galileo. Cleveland, who was stepping up a mile from his longest previous race distance to win the great staying handicap, is by Camelot, also the sire of Luxembourg. Camelot will doubtless have other chances of siring the winner of the second Classic he won.

The hardest part for any trainer is to break into the big league. Last week George Boughey won the 1,000 Guineas with Cachet and Ferguson must also be harbouring that dream, probably first imagined in the years his father John was, with Simon Crisford, at the helm of running the Godolphin interests of Sheikh Mohammed.

Another young Newmarket handler who may not be too far away from joining them is Tom Clover. On Saturday Clover took the Oaks Trial at Lingfield, his first stakes win, with the unbeaten Rogue Millennium, a bargain buy for the Rogues Gallery from the Shadwell dispersal. She was bought on the strong recommendation of her previous handler, Marcus Tregoning, who never got her to the track. A beautiful, strong daughter of Dubawi, she cost 35,000gns at auction and with her pedigree, looks and above all ability must be worth half a million!

I’d love her to win the Oaks. Tom and his wife Jackie, daughter of the late and much-missed Classic trainer Michael Jarvis, are showing signs of moving smoothly onto racing’s top table;

 *

One necessary ingredient in racing is luck. Another is the ability to take an opportunity when it comes along. On Friday morning in Kentucky, one of the original 20 horses in the field for the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs, Louisville, was withdrawn owing to a late injury.

That left the way for the 21st acceptor on the list, Rich Strike, an 80/1 shot trained by Eric Reed and ridden by the unknown South American jockey Sonny Leon, to squeeze into the line-up and race from the widest draw of all.

His two best runs this spring had been placed efforts (third and fourth) in minor stakes behind Tiz The Bomb, favoured on both occasions, each time as a 20/1 shot or longer at Turfway Park. That horse was also in Saturday’s field and started a 30/1 shot.

Race commentator Larry Colmuss couldn’t have considered him much either because the second highest-priced winner of the race in the past 110 years had already run past the two favourites into the lead before he even noticed him.

Rich Strike bolted up and afterwards his trainer, who had the mortification of losing a large part of his string, his records, trophies and memorabilia in a stable fire a few years ago, said he had been very hopeful as he knew he would stay.

I don’t know what the horse is like in his stable but I can honestly say I have never seen so graphic a sight of one horse trying literally to savage another. For several minutes as Sonny Leon was trying to participate in a post-race interview his horse was attacking the pony, despite all the efforts of that horse’s rider.

Eric Reed certainly had luck on his side when he decided to claim the colt out of a race on the same Churchill Downs track last autumn. You pay your money beforehand over there, and if they run badly you have to bite the bullet.

Eric Reed and his owners didn’t have a bullet to bite, just the thrill of seeing the horse, bred and raced in the famed Calumet Farm colours, romp home by more than 17 lengths. Even then, thoughts of the Kentucky Derby must have been some way from even their optimistic minds.

It is hard not to sympathise with the jockey who rode him that day. That young man had to endure each of the two days of the meeting riding a single unfancied and unsighted horse, before watching the Derby. An Englishman who between 2010 and 2017 rode between a high of 39 and low of 15 wins over those eight seasons, he left for a new career in the US the following year.

Initially his move to the US brought great success and by early December 2018 he had ridden well over 50 winners, enough to put him second in the Fair Grounds, Louisiana, jockey standings.

No doubt he would never have expected to have ridden a Kentucky Derby winner in that horse’s only previous career win. The way Rich Strike finished on his return to Churchill Downs offers hope that the winning will not stop there.

Anyway, have you guessed the identity of the jockey? I think I’ d like to delay the revelation to allow me what I have always thought was the funniest moment ever at a disciplinary inquiry in the UK. Up before the terrifying if slightly out-of-touch gentleman in charge of the inquiry, upon being asked for his name, our hero said: “Beschizza” which the gent misinterpreted as “Biscuit, sir”. “Well Mr Biscuit,” he began. No wonder Adam of that name thought he’d better go elsewhere to ply his trade.

A nephew of Julia Feilden, he’s very much from a racing background and if he hasn’t quite made the big time in the US he will always be able to tell his grandchildren of the day he rode the horse that was to win the Kentucky Derby to a 17-length win also at Churchill Downs.

- TS

Draw Bias 2022: Part 3a [Top 10 Biases, #10-6]

/in /by

In the next two articles in this series on the draw, I will share what I believe to be the Top Ten current draw biases in the UK and Ireland, writes Dave Renham. In this first half, I will reveal positions 10 down to 6; the follow-up one will examine ‘the top 5’. Of course, I appreciate that there will be people who  disagree with my hierarchy, but ultimately all ten biases will be distinct and, with luck, profitable to deploy alongside more traditional form reading. As a bonus, I will also share some ‘near misses’ that just failed to make the top ten.

Now, just because a course and distance has a draw bias, that doesn't necessarily equate to a profit, as I have discussed already in the first two articles. However, having a fuller understanding of any biases does give us an edge over most other punters and enables us to factor this awareness into our wider considerations.

For each entry in the top ten, the plan is to begin by sharing the raw draw stats, and then to drill down into some interesting angles. These may be going considerations or larger field sizes. In all cases, I am looking at draw data from the last six full seasons (2016 to 2021) and, as ever, the initial focus will be 8+ runner handicaps. The profit and loss figures are calculated to industry SP, although where appropriate I will mention Betfair SP figures. With that said, let's begin the countdown...

10th position - Chester 7f

Ahead of the hugely popular May meeting on the Roodee, we go first to Chester and specifically the 7f trip. The draw breakdowns are as follows:

 

 

There is a distinct advantage here for those drawn low which may be little surprise given the tight configuration of the track. Lower draws have a definite edge here in terms of win %, placed % and Impact Value. In addition to this the PRB (percentage of rivals beaten) figure of 0.58 for low draws is strong. However, higher draws have actually proved to be the best value of the three sections despite lower draws winning nearly twice as often. Indeed, backing all high drawn horses would have made a profit to BSP to the tune of £48.61 (ROI +39.2%).

So why is this happening? Ultimately, Chester is well known for its low draw bias at various distances and the market naturally adjusts for this. It appears that at this distance it may have over-adjusted. The average SP of the lowest three draws has been 8.29/1; the highest three draws has averaged out at 22/1. This currently looks a case where it may pay to ‘go against the draw’ to find value.

I looked into whether perming lower draws in forecasts, tricasts, exactas or trifectas would have yielded any profit, but to no avail. In terms of possible profit routes, perming the lowest four drawn horses in trifectas came the closest, but would have lost 5% of overall stakes. However, if we had gone back an extra year and included 2015, this trifecta bet would have yielded an 8% profit. Exotic bets like these come with risk and low strike rates, so the odd decent payout can swing the balance.

9th position - Chester 7f 127 yards

This is the longer of two approximately seven furlong trips at Chester. With rail adjustments, from time to time this distance has been extended by up to 37 yards. For the record, when using the Geegeez Draw Analyser the distance to use is 1 mile (because of rounding, and to differentiate it from the flat 7f trip). Here are the raw draw splits:

 

 

Low draws once again hold sway as one would expect. However, it is not a profitable avenue backing lower drawn runners. Indeed there are similar losses across the board.

A similar pattern occurs over this ‘extended 7’ as we saw over 7f. Higher draws have proved slightly better value due to their inflated prices. In fact, the three ‘worst’ stalls in terms of the draw (the three highest draws), have combined to make a profit to BSP. They have produced a £34.95 profit to £1 level stakes which equates to returns of just over 21%.

Going back to the initial figures, horses drawn in lowest third of the draw have won 48.2% of all 8+ runner handicap races. This draw bias strengthens when the field size increases as the graph below shows:

 

 

There is a clear correlation showing lower draws perform better as the field size increases. Indeed, in handicaps of 12 or more runners the lowest three stalls have combined to produce a profit of £20.31 (ROI +52.1%) to BSP. At last some value it seems in backing lower drawn runners.

Chester’s low draw bias at various distances is clearly well known, and in general it is hard to make those low draws pay. However, in bigger fields over 7½f that might just be possible.

Finally a running style snippet for you: horses drawn low that lead early or race prominently win more than three times as often as all other draw and running style combinations put together.

 

8th position - Kempton 7f

I'm moving to the all-weather for #8. Kempton Park has a significant number of meetings each year with bundles of 7f handicaps. This gives us an excellent sample size to work with. All qualifying races give the following draw splits:

 

 

Horses drawn closest to the inside rail have the edge over middle draws, with middle draws out-performing higher draws. When we look at the individual draw positions we can see that once you get to stall 9 or higher, winning becomes more difficult:

 

 

Only horses drawn in stall 6 have proved profitable ‘blind’, which is entirely random; but it should be noted that, at Betfair SP, those drawn in stalls 1, 2 and 3 combined made a loss of just 1% (1p in the £).

The maximum field at Kempton is 14 and if we look at races with 12 or more runners, the bias strengthens:

 

 

In these bigger field races the lowest drawn horse, in stall 1, would have made a small 9.5% profit to BSP. Meanwhile, if you had backed the three highest drawn runners in handicaps of 12 or more runners, you would have seen a loss of £257.67 (ROI -50.5%) to SP; if using Betfair SP the figures improve a little but losses are still significant - £182.33 (ROI -35.8%).

There is some good news for those of you who like combining low draws in tricasts or trifectas. There have been 170 races with 12 or more runners at Kempton over 7f in the sample period. During those 170 races, the lowest three drawn horses have filled the first three places on five occasions. Now this may not sound many, just about 3%, but in reality this is quite remarkable given the huge number of possible three-stall combinations in each race. It is too complicated to go into the maths of it all, so let us look at the bottom line figures for perming the three lowest draws in tricasts or trifectas in these 12+ runner handicaps.

Let’s assume we had a 10p combination tricast on the lowest three drawn horses in these 170 races. Our outlay would be 60p per race (6 combinations / lines of 10p) and therefore an overall outlay of £102. Our returns would have been £345.11 giving a clear profit of £243.11. That converts to an ROI of 238.3%! The figures are even better for trifectas as the tote variant of the same bet would have yielded a clear profit of £311.50 (ROI +305.4%). As an aside, perming the three lowest draws in combination exactas would have made a profit too, with a modest but still eminently satisfactory 14% ROI.

From a running style perspective horses that lead early have a definite edge. Horses that race close to the pace (prominent) generally out-perform horses that run in mid-division or are held up. For those drawn in the lowest third here are the win percentages in terms of running style shown:

 

 

Leaders fare best and there is a sliding scale back to hold up horses from low draws which performed worst from the inside stalls.

To conclude, when betting at Kempton in 8+ runner handicaps, I would personally ignore horses drawn in stalls 9 or higher unless I could find a compelling reason not to, such as they had the early speed to get near the front (and they did not look to face too much early pace pressure inside). Bottom line: a horse drawn low that has early pace is the ideal type of horse we are looking for.

7th position – York 1m

Way back in the 1990s, York’s mile trip offered a strong draw bias and that remains the case today. As you can see from the racecourse map below, the 1 mile trip has a left turn that starts after about a furlong and a half, and the sweeping bend lasts for just over a furlong.

 

The result is that high draws can be forced wide, especially in big fields, meaning they have to run further. Alternatively they can take back and tack to the inside but then they will be faced with several horses to pass in the straight potentially needing luck in running. It should be noted that the finishing straight is quite long and therefore poorly positioned horses round the bend do have time to recover, but the draw stats illustrate the problem high stalls still have:

 

 

High draws have struggled across all categories, while the lowest draws have the edge over middle berths. In terms of wins, which essentially is key, the draw win percentages for each third can be nicely illustrated by a pie chart:

 

 

Nearly half of all 8+ runner handicaps between 2016 and 2021 were won by horses from the lowest third of the draw. Meanwhile, the highest drawn third won around one race in every seven (1 in 6.76 to be absolutely precise). Let's now look at the breakdown of individual stall positions as there are a few interesting patterns:

 

 

Firstly I note a cut off point at stall 6. According to the six-year data it is definitely an advantage to be drawn 6 or lower. That sextet of boxes have provided 33 winners from 282 runners (11.7%), while horses drawn 7 or higher have provided just 14 winners from 393 runners (3.6%). What this essentially means is that, since 2016, horses drawn 1 to 6 have been 3.3 times more likely to win than those drawn in stall 7 or higher. Also horses drawn in stalls 4, 5 and 6 have produced good returns to SP with excellent A/E values of 1.15, 1.59 and 1.36 respectively.

There also seems to be a second cut-off point at stall 14. The record of horses drawn 14 or higher has been dire – just 1 win from 111 runners. Backing all 111 runners would have yielded an SP loss of £102.00 – that means for every £10 bet you would lose £9.19. At BSP you would have been 1p better off (loss of £9.18 !!).

Why very wide draws struggle may be explained further by looking at how the stalls are set up at York. The picture below shows the stalls at York in a 20-runner 1 mile race. As can be seen, the stalls are split into blocks of ten which are joined together. In reality an extra two stalls width is added to the middle meaning that horses drawn 11 are effectively 13 stalls from the inside; those drawn 12 are 14 stalls from the inside, and so on.

 

 

On average, three to four races a year at York over 1m see fields of 16 or more; there have been 20 races during the period of study with this number of runners from which low draws have secured 12 wins (60%).

Sticking with races of 16 or more runners, there has once again been profit in certain tricast and trifecta perms. Knowing that the lowest six draws dominate these races, what would have happened if we had permed / combined these six stalls in tricasts and trifectas? The problem with six-horse perms, of course, is that there are a lot of combinations: 120 to be precise. Using 10p stakes once again, a combination tricast on the lowest six drawn horses would see an outlay of £12 per race with an overall outlay over the 20 races of £240. There were four winning bets and our returns would have been £361.20 giving a clear profit of £121.20 (ROI +50.5%). Trifecta returns, though, ‘win’ again; they would have yielded a huge profit of £417.72 (ROI +174.1%).

To conclude, York over 1 mile is a potentially playable bias, certainly in terms of narrowing the field down – in big fields I would ignore all horses drawn 14 or bigger. In all handicaps with 8+ runners my main focus would be on horses drawn in stalls 1 to 6.

6th position – Kempton 6f

Back to Kempton for our sixth best draw bias, this time a look at the 6f handicap draw statistics:

 

 

With the 7f trip showing a low draw bias, it is no surprise to see the same here. Indeed, this is an even stronger bias over the shorter distance and once more it comes from a large sample of races.

Looking at the win strike rate of individual stall positions the graph below has a clear trend:

 

 

As a general rule, win chance decreases as the actual stall position increases. We can see that horses drawn in stalls 1 to 3 have the edge over those drawn 4 to 6, who in turn have the edge over draws 7 to 12. Note that over 6f at Kempton Park, the maximum field size is 12, down from 14 for 7f races.

The placed percentage stats (win and placed combined) correlate extremely well as you can see:

 

 

When examining the 7f trip earlier, we saw the bias strengthening as the field size increased. This happens over 6f, too, as we get to near maximum fields (races with 11 or 12 runners):

 

 

For those tricast and trifecta fans out there, perming the three lowest drawn horses would have been profitable, although only just. Tricasts would have produced a small 2.6% return; trifectas a bit higher at 5.9%. The big winner from exotic bets would have been if you had backed the three lowest drawn horses in combination forecasts or exactas. If you had chosen the CSF (Computer Straight Forecast) for every £1 wagered it would have returned £1.30; exactas would have returned £1.38. Returns of 30p and 38p in the £ (30 and 38%) are certainly not to be sneezed at, and they occur more regularly than trifectas, too!

The Kempton 6f draw bias is a strong one and looks a playable one. The lowest four stalls always require very close scrutiny.

Finally a quick look at running styles combined with the draw. The heat map below shows the SR% for each draw/running style combination:

 

 

Front runners enjoy a good edge regardless of draw, although low drawn front runners are clearly the best of the bunch. Prominent racers from low and middle draws also perform above the norm. It definitely looks worth avoiding any high drawn horse that is likely to race mid pack or towards the back early.

So there we have the lower half of my top ten draw biases, #10 to #6... but I’m not quite finished yet!

Just outside the Top Ten...

Here are some biases that were close to the top 10 but just failed to make the cut.

Redcar 5f-1m (straight course) 14 or more runners

All the biases I have looked at so far have been round course biases, where the lower draws have the edge essentially due to the fact that they are in the best position to take advantage of the shortest route on the inside. But there are a few straight course biases as well, though - as I mentioned in a previous article - they are less prevalent these days due to better course management and watering systems.

At Redcar on the straight course lower draws have generally held sway, more especially when the field sizes get quite big. There is a decent amount of straight course data with 14+ runner fields at Redcar because they race over four trips on it – 5f, 6f, 7f and 1m. Here are the draw splits:

 

 

These stats look strong and definitely could have made the top 10 cut. In fact it probably would have done, but while I was doing the research there was a 20-runner race at Redcar early this season that went completely against the low draw bias script. It was a 6f handicap on the 18th April. Here are the first five finishers:

 

 

Draw 17 beat draw 19 with draw 16 back in third: three of the five highest stalls filled the first three places. Not only that, look at the prices – 40/1, 50/1 and 66/1. The tricast paid over £30,000! Also draws 13 and 18 filled 4th and 5th with stalls 10 and 12 rounding out the first seven home - all double digit stalls. The best finishing position from a low drawn horse was 8th, Jems Bond, who was beaten 5 lengths.

Now this could have simply been a one-off but, if it was, it is still not easy to explain. This type of occurrence does sometimes happen on straight courses. Some pundits believe it is down to pace bias on the day rather than draw bias. This is difficult to prove one way or the other, but it is certainly possible. What I can say is that this handicap was a very low grade affair (a 0-55) which may have been a factor in what might turn out to be a freak result. Keep your eyes peeled on upcoming big field straight track handicaps at Redcar!

Before moving on to the next course, here are some more six-year stats from 14+ runner handicaps at Redcar on the straight course. It is looking at the PRB figures for each individual distance. To remind you, PRB stands for Percentage of Rivals beaten which is a key measure when looking at draw bias.

 

 

A consistency /correlation can be seen across all distances adding confidence in the overall data.

For me, I would just like to see how a couple more big field races this year pan out before completely ‘nailing my colours to the low draws mast’. The six-year data is far more important than the one race on the 18th April but sometimes it is best to be cautious, especially early in the season, because things may have changed over the winter. I know from experience that draw biases can reverse, having seen it happen too many times over the last 30 years. My gut feeling is that low draws will still have the edge in the future, but I have been wrong before.

Brighton 1m (7f 214yds)

I have never really considered Brighton to be a course of draw bias interest but the 1 mile stats are interesting:

 

 

There seems to be an edge to high draws with low stalls seemingly at quite a disadvantage. It is not an easy bias to explain when you look at the course map:

 

 

Low is on the inside so if there were to be bias here the expectation would be that low draws would be favoured. There is one plausible explanation that Matt suggested to me when we were discussing it. He thought it may be to do with lower drawn horses hanging into the camber against the far rail and not getting a clear run, while those drawn wider either go forward or come wide in the straight thus guaranteeing clear sailing either way. That certainly makes sense and is perhaps the reason for this counter-intuitive bias.

If there is a true bias here then it seems to get stronger in bigger fields, but with a caveat that the sample size is small – below shows the 2016-2021 data with 13 or more runners:

 

 

15 races is a very small sample, but it is still statistically unlikely that these figures are completely down to chance. My plan is to keep an eye on Brighton’s mile trip this season in the hope that this ‘bias’ is replicated.

Chelmsford 1m

The final near miss to share in this article (there will more near misses next time) is Chelmsford over 1 mile. We have an excellent sample size here with 277 races:

 

 

Here we have a noticeable edge to low in all areas. For the record draws 1, 2 and 4 have all made a ‘blind’ profit to BSP ranging from 9% to 19%, so the bottom four stalls may be worthy of focus (it would make no sense whatsoever to exclude draw 3 simply because it was unprofitable).

When we get to near maximum fields (15+) high draws seem to really struggle albeit from a modest sample:

 

 

There have only been 22 races with this many runners, but there is good correlation across all the key ‘markers’.

There is not a similar low draw bias at either 5, 6 or 7f at Chelmsford which begs the question, why? I think the answer can be explained when we examine the racecourse map:

 

 

Mile races start from a separate ‘chute’ and thus wider draws have to negotiate an extra bend, which comes up reasonably rapidly, compared with the shorter distances. Therefore, if high drawn runners stay wide early, they will be travelling a greater distance than those hugging the inside. The reason the bias is modest is that wide horses still have around six and a half furlongs to recover from a potentially difficult start. This course and distance seems to be simply a case of low is best, though a higher draw is not insurmountable.

 

And that's it for the first half of my top ten draw biases (and near misses). Tune in next week for the five most playable biases. Until then...

- DR

Monday Musings: A Guineas Double Top for the Doyler

/in /by

Standing by the side of the paddock as the generally agreed handsome field for the 2,000 Guineas lined past, Alex Cole, son of trainer Paul and elder brother of joint-trainer Oliver, and Olly Sangster, grandson of Robert, were agreed that the three principals in the market were the biggest and the best-looking, writes Tony Stafford.

“Both Charlie Appleby’s are coming up to 540 kilos and Native Trail already was a giant as a two-year-old”, said Alex. “Dad always said it was better to buy a big horse. As long as you are careful with them, they usually have so much more substance.”

How the Cole stable would love to be back in the same milieu inhabited nowadays only by the likes of Godolphin, Coolmore and the biggest established teams like Varian, Balding, Hannon, Fahey and Johnston (father and son). The five supplied the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth respectively and the only absentees from their “two-hundred club” were William Haggas, and the Gosdens father and son, without a runner in the first Classic race of 2022.

For all the merit of the supporting cast, though, they could not match the three market leaders – the big, very big, three of Coroebus, Native Trail and Aidan O’Brien’s Luxembourg, of whom everyone immediately afterwards said, “The Derby!” If the old “fourth in the Guineas, first in the Derby” adage needs a little finessing, so be it.

Master Cole, still glowing after the Palace House Stakes success immediately beforehand of Khaadem, owned by Mrs Fitri Hay, to whom he is racing manager, will be an adherent of the formula.

Back in 1991, when Alex was but a lad, Generous, trained by his father for Prince Fahd Salman, finished fourth in the 2,000 Guineas and did indeed go on to success in the Derby a month later. I’m sure that Guineas is engraved on the family’s hearts and it is on mine, too.

As the semi-celebration of a Classic fourth place from the large Saudi entourage developed that day as I’m sure talk of the Derby took root, a tall elegant young gentleman beckoned me over from among the waiting press corps for an early chinwag.

That was Prince Fahd’s younger brother, Prince Ahmed bin Salman, and he told me he would like me to write some articles for the newspaper his family owned and still does three decades later. In Central London, on news-stands, the “green paper” as London’s Arabic community knows Asharq Al Awsat, is to this day highly conspicuous.

I did indeed thereafter write a column – translated of course – every week for a decade and that led to working with the Prince’s Thoroughbred Corporation which was also to win the Derby with Oath eight years later. Many international races also came its way including five consecutive US Triple Crown races (but oddly no Triple Crown) and many Breeders’ Cups. Then, in 2002, his sudden and untimely death, almost exactly a year after Prince Fahd’s, both men had been in their forties, ended an era.

For both Charlie Appleby and Coroebus’ rider James Doyle, this was a 2,000 Guineas first and, for Doyle, an initial success in any UK Classic. It must have been a wonderful family occasion all round and one that William Buick did not begrudge his friend as he filled second place on the favourite Native Trail.

Charlie’s mum, Patricia, and James’s mother, Jacqui, are constant companions on the racetrack at the major meetings. Former trainer Jacqui has been the biggest and strongest support for her son and elder daughter Sophie, riding with great success in the US for the last few years. Her pride in their success can only be exceeded by the knowledge that she has produced two wonderful, modest human beings.

When she was training in Lambourn at around the turn of the century, her biggest financial supporter was Tom Ford, coincidentally my former opening partner in the Eton Manor cricket side of the late 1960’s, but by then a big financial player in the City. Tom and Jacqui split after a few years’ intermittent success, and the way she battled to bring up her kids and kept going through various difficulties was more than admirable.

Long before those days, my former next-door neighbour in Hertfordshire, Roger Anderson, knew Jacqui from the pointing field and I remember chatting to her with Roger at Huntingdon races while the two very young children would be running around, playing in front of the grandstands.

On Saturday, James Doyle had his first British Classic. Yesterday, in the manner of London buses, a second comes along right after and, in guiding Cachet to an all-the-way success, he was returning the favour by giving George Boughey his initial Classic triumph in only his third full season with a licence.

Boughey’s rise from the time he was assistant to Hugo Palmer has been, to coin a hackneyed phrase, meteoric and anyone who thought it was only Amo Racing’s horses which represent football agent Kia Joorabchian that has got him there, think again.

It was fine that Godolphin and Coolmore would fight out the colts’ Classic ahead of the rest of the domestic major teams, but this was a victory for the small – probably not for long – man.  George was listed with 104 horses in the latest Horses in Training and that is sure to go up – probably already has at the breeze-ups with some more to come.

This filly has modest antecedents as a daughter of the £6k National Stud stallion Aclaim, a horse raced and trained by Martyn Meade to win seven of his 15 starts, including the Group 1 Prix de la Foret on Arc day in his final race.

The £6,000 fee in 2022 is just below half his starting point and Cachet, a member of his first crop, is alone going to be responsible for sending him into orbit and providing Martyn with a healthy dividend for his massive investment in the sport. The biggest commitment has been the purchase of Manton, which even put a strain on Robert Sangster’s finances three decades ago.

When Cachet came up for sale as a yearling, she attracted a bid of 60,000 guineas and became one of the many successful Highclere purchases, master-minded by Harry Herbert and his brother-in-law (and Her Majesty’s racing manager), John Warren.

I have friends who have been with Highclere all along since they started and I’m hoping, Andrew, that you came into this one although I fear you probably did not. But again, a win for a syndicate horse of prosaic origins can be the life blood of the sport going forward.

James Doyle only rode at Newmarket for two of the three days of the Guineas meeting – he had a success at Goodwood on Friday – and he preceded Coroebus’ victory with a well-judged win on 22/1 Ian Williams-trained Cap Francais in a valuable nine-furlong handicap.

As he welcomed the former Ed Walker inmate into the enclosure, he reflected on what could have been at Ascot earlier in the week when Enemy got squeezed up the rail by the tough Irish mare Princess Zoe which allowed Quickthorn to pinch second place close home.

“At least we know now I was on the right track with Enemy”, said Williams on Saturday. “He’ll run in the Henry II at Sandown at the end of the month, then I’ll give him a long break before he travels out to Australia for the Melbourne Cup. He’ll have his prep as the best Australians do just before in the Caulfield Cup. You might as well run for a couple of million if you’re going to have a trial,” he said.

Before that for Williams and everyone else, it’s the small matter of Chester. Friday’s Chester Cup fell to his last Melbourne Cup challenger, Magic Circle, four years ago when he also won the Henry II Stakes. He fears the Cup may be beyond him this time but he has a plethora of possibles in Friday’s finale, and the Plate for Cup eliminations. I will be shocked if he didn’t win it but don’t ask me (or Ian probably) with which one!

- TS

Gold Nuggets #13: Race Reviews, and Creating Tissues

/in , /by

In this extended double edition of Gold Nuggets, I cover two topics that I feel are super important for sharpening our understanding of value:

1. Result REviews: this is about looking back at the bigger priced winners on the day and trying to find snippets of form/data that gave the winner a chance. The objective is to a) better understand that every horse has some sort of chance, and b) start thinking more about that chance in terms of the odds available.

2. Creating a 'Tissue': That follows neatly into PREviewing a race and using the available information to rank horses in approximately order of their chance, and then to try to create a 'tissue' or odds line from the information you've aggregated. It's a great way of honing your skills and isolating value. Remember, we're comparing the tissue prices we come up with against the Starting Price market, not the early prices!

Don't forget, you can speed me up by clicking the little cog icon bottom right on the video, selecting 'Playback Speed' and then your choice from there - maybe 1.5x

 

Contents:

00:00 Introduction
01:40 Reviewing Results scene setter
03:15 Classy Al
11:45 Easy to find 20/1 winner (with Geegeez Gold!)
21:50 Point and shoot pace angle winner
25:15 Setting up your tissue on Geegeez Gold
26:15 Tissue overview: race helicopter view
30:50 Horse note taking
1:03:30 Converting notes into odds/probabilities
1:10:05 Comparing tissue with early prices
1:12:25 Summary: why we should do this from time to time

 

UPDATE: It's fair to say that I significantly under-estimated the chance of Love Your Work in the market. Incredibly, to my eye at least, he was sent off an odds-on shot. Regardless of the result (he was only fourth), I felt 4/6 was way too short - though I probably should have had him no bigger than 3/1 and just got it wrong, plain and simple.

Bookmark was extremely weak in the betting, presumably looking less than cherry ripe on his seasonal debut, but ran a very good race to be a closing third; he'll be an interesting one going forward. Swinton Noon was never going and ran as though something wonky, while Spantik was tenacious and stayed on well (as expected) in second (not expected) but just didn't have the pace to match Carrigillihy. Whatwouldyouknow and Quoteline Direct were fifth and sixth, pretty much in line with how I had them priced up.

The winner returned 5/1 and was 7/2 joint favourite on my tissue; second was 11/1 (7/1 on my tissue); and the third was 12/1 (7/2jf on my tissue). So a good race for me on this occasion but, it bears repeating, when the price disparity is as big as it was with Love Your Work (and Bookmark), it is more often than not the tissue compiler who has it wrong!

 

Draw Bias 2022: Part 2

/in /by

In the first article in this series I looked at how the draw can influence the market and how the market can change over time to compensate, writes Dave Renham.

Occasionally the market still gets it wrong regarding draw bias but that is increasingly rare. This is because horse racing betting markets are usually extremely efficient (by the time the race goes off, at least), not just taking the draw into account, but multiple other key factors. In this article I am going to share more draw-based research that I hope you will find interesting and ultimately useful for your own betting.

For those Gold members of Geegeez, the good news is that you are able to research the draw in two places: the Draw Analyser and the Query Tool. How you use each to study the draw is partly personal choice, but I would suggest that best insights are obtained when deploying both, not just one or the other; I use both tools for my research. Essentially, if I am just looking at the draw and nothing else I will use the Draw Analyser, but if I want to use the draw in conjunction with other factors then I’ll use the Query Tool.

When using the Geegeez Draw Analyser the stalls are split into three sections or ‘thirds’ – low, middle and high. What this means is that in a 12 runner race for example, draws 1 to 4 would be in the low third, 5 to 8 in the middle, and 9 to 12 high.

TYPES OF DRAW BIAS

I want to start by talking about types of draw bias. I believe there are two types of bias. Firstly a bias that favours a particular section of the draw; secondly a bias against a particular section of the draw. Let me illustrate with a couple of examples using draw data from 2016 to 2021. Unless otherwise stated, in this article I am going to focus on 8+ runner handicaps during this six-year period.

Pontefract 1m 2f

It is rare to get effective draw biases at distances of 1m2f or more, but Pontefract is an exception. If we look at the track configuration we can perhaps see why this bias exists:

 

 

Low draws are positioned on the inside and with an early left turn this gives them the advantage of taking the shortest route assuming they break well. In contrast, higher drawn runners are either stuck out wide round the first turn or forced to tuck in mid pack or near the back, or they need to be rushed forward to get a position thus using energy very early in the race.

There is a second left hand turn after about another two furlongs cementing the early positional advantage for low drawn runners; and there is a third turn about a quarter mile from home which again favours those racing near to the inside rail. Let’s look at the most recent six-season data now:

 

 

The stats show a clear advantage to one section of the draw (LOW); there is a significant advantage in most areas. Low drawn runners win more often, place more often, have higher IV values and higher PRB figures, too. However, backing all such runners to SP would have made a small loss and the A/E index value is lower than the middle section’s A/E value. This factor was referenced in the first article: the market at Pontefract clearly appreciates there is a draw bias. Just because one section of the draw is clearly favoured, this not in itself a license to print money! For the record, however, you would have made a small profit  of £11.98 during this period backing low draws to Betfair SP.

Pontefract over 1m 2f is an example of a bias strongly favouring a particular section. With middle draws out-performing higher draws, this is an example of a fairly linear relationship: the lower the draw the better. Draw 1 is better than draw 6; draw 6 is better than draw 10 etc.

 

 

Now for an example of a draw bias against a particular section of the draw.

Musselburgh 5f

The sprint 5f trip at Musselburgh is essentially a straight five but there is a slight kink to the left at the 3f pole which can slightly hinder wider drawn runners. With Musselburgh being a right handed course at longer distances, it means horses drawn next to the rail are the higher drawn runners. Here are the stats:

 

 

This is far from being a strong draw bias, but there is a bias against lower drawn runners compared with high and middle drawn runners. Low drawn runners come out comfortably bottom in all of the parameters as shown in the breakdown above. Looking at 2009 to 2015 we get a similar picture which gives further confidence that this is likely to continue this season and beyond.

 

 

It does seem that the kink to the left at the 3f pole is enough to make life more difficult for the wide (low)-drawn runners.

 

Indeed if we ignore 8- and 9-runner races (the smallest fields), and look at handicap races with ten or more runners we get the following results:

 

 

All of the low drawn variables deteriorate further, and such horses are winning only just above half of the races they statistically should (IV 0.53, an Impact Value of 1.00 being on par). Consequently, both middle and high draws are winning more races than they statistically should. One would expect to see those wider draws (low) struggling more over 5f at Musselburgh as the field size increases. However, it is always good to see results in black and white - as per the image above - to back up a theory.

 

INDIVIDUAL DRAWS / STALLS

A question: when you look at draw biased course and distances, what do you focus in on? The so called favoured third of the draw only? The favoured half of the draw? Or do you go further and have a preference for specific draws / stalls?

There is an argument to back the horse that is in ‘pole position’ especially on a turning track. One would think that would be the horse housed closest to the inside (i.e. drawn 1). However, the stats I have uncovered suggest differently. The stats suggest the second closest horse to the inside (i.e. actual draw 2 - 'actual' draw being the real position a horse was drawn, after accounting for any non-runners) is generally most favoured.

To show this in more detail I have looked at all 8+ runner handicaps over 5f and 6f run around a bend (2016-2021). For the record there are 12 UK courses where 5f and/or 6f races occur round a bend (seven turf courses and five on the all-weather).

Firstly I want to compare win and placed strike rates (N.B. Place SR% includes winners with the placed runners).

 

 

The margins may look quite small but they are significant as the data set covers over 2400 handicap races over 5/6f. All other key stats also point in favour of 'actual' draw 2. Firstly A/E values:

 

 

Runners drawn 2 have been far better value than those drawn 1. This is a much bigger difference than I had expected.

Next a look at profit / loss figures. Firstly a comparison of traditional SP figures (to £1 level stakes):

 

 

Losses of nearly 26p in the £ if backing all horses drawn 1 are bankruptcy territory; a smaller 8p in the £ loss for all horses drawn 2 would see a far more protracted slide to the proverbial poorhouse. But, here's Betfair SP to save the day:

 

 

The flow of bleeding has been stemmed from stall 1 but there are still bank-destroying losses; whereas trap 2 is now in the black!

But... we already know that profit / loss figures can easily be skewed by big-priced outlier winners, especially using Betfair odds. So I thought it worth comparing stats for the two draws when the Betfair SP was no bigger than 16.0. Here is what I found:

 

 

We can now see that big priced winners are not skewing the stats. Draw 2 once again has a better strike rate (both win and placed), better returns and a much stronger A/E value.

So what is actually happening here to promote stall two above the notionally best-drawn box, stall one? That is something I have pondered for many years because I have seen this type of pattern repeating time and again.

One plausible theory is that it may simply be down to the fact that horses drawn right next to the rail have less room for manoeuvre. With a rail on their inside, if they break from the stalls poorly then they are very likely to be stuck behind one or more horses. Their options are compromised until they've completed the turn by which time it may be too late. Meanwhile, horses drawn 2 have a little more space either side of them and hence more options if they break slowly. Whether this theory is true or not I obviously cannot say, but there is logic there, and it is a pattern replicated in US dirt racing at sprint distances around a turn.

What is clear in terms of the stats: in 5-6f handicaps round a turn it is preferable to be drawn 2 rather than 1.

Before moving on, I mentioned that 12 courses were in that sample and, of those 12 courses, only Kempton saw a clear advantage to horses drawn 1 over those drawn 2. Two courses - Epsom (6f) and Wetherby 5½f - had limited data (just 16 and 15 races respectively), while the other nine courses all favoured horses drawn 2 over horses drawn 1, most of them fairly strongly.

 

 

GOOD DRAWS WITH PRICE CONSIDERATIONS

As we have seen, backing a specific draw / stall under certain conditions could produce a profitable scenario. However, this idea is full of risks as we are pinning our hopes on one stall position and nothing else. So, how about combining a good draw with market factors? This is what we are going to look at next.

I have taken six of the strongest draw biases from the past six seasons (these are Chester over 5f and 7f; Goodwood over 7f and 1 mile; and Pontefract over 1 mile and 1 mile 2 furlongs). From there I have focused on the four stalls closest to the favoured inside rail: actual draws 1 to 4. Then I have ordered them depending on price. My idea is to compare price position of these good draws to see if there are patterns to be found.

By way of an example, let’s imagine the following scenario:

 

 

That would mean an order as follows:

 

 

Here are the actual results for the six course/distances (profit/loss has been calculated to Betfair SP and we are again focusing on handicaps with eight or more runners):

Chester 5f 

 

Chester 7f 

 

Goodwood 7f 

 

Goodwood 1 mile

 

Pontefract 1 mile

 

Pontefract 1 mile 2 furlongs

 

Combining the six courses we get the following results:

 

It seems therefore the best value lies at either end of the price position spectrum. The shortest priced runners drawn 1 to 4 have made the biggest profit. They have also had a decent strike rate of 28.6%. The biggest priced runner from draws 1 to 4 have also made good profits although it would have been a bit of a rollercoaster with just 13 wins from 258 runners (SR 5%).

So is this the way to go? I'm not sure, but I believe the idea is worthy of more digging in the future. I’ll add it to my rapidly expanding research list!

- DR

 

Monday Musings: Of Ryan, and Raiding Parties

/in /by

“It’s a long way to Tipperary”, the first world war British army recruits used to sing as they trudged along the blasted fields of France, writes Tony Stafford. More than a century later, Ryan Moore fitted in an afternoon there sandwiched in between two successful days in Surrey, with a winner apiece at Epsom and Sandown Park.

Tipperary also provided a victory for Aidan O’Brien on Thursday but when the private jet touched down for its second Irish hop for Navan on Saturday, the serious business began. It is, after all, Guineas week – yes April 30th rather than the first Saturday in May - and the barely started flat-race season will be two-fifths of the way through the 2022 Classic races by May Day.

If we needed a sign that O’Brien senior, like his main adversary for the first Classic, Charlie Appleby, has his team in form, then Navan would tell us. Before the meeting Ryan told a mutual friend that all the maidens would run well.

In the event Ryan got on three of O’Brien’s five winners, Aidan matching stay-at-home Paul Nicholls’ tally on the final day of yet another victorious jumps championship at Sandown. Understandably, Nicholls preferred saving his best horses for the two four-runner and one five-runner highly-priced (if not as highly-prized as the swollen jumps pattern would wish) contests largely free from Irish interference. *Note: If you would like a detailed, reasoned evocation of the negative effect on the sport of the ever-growing jumps pattern, read editor Matt Bisogno’s highly informed piece on the subject.

Where the Irish did challenge, in the £90k to the winner Bet365 Gold Cup (nee Whitbread), they mopped up the prize, via 16/1 shot Hewick, trained by Shark Hanlon. Why he, of the flaming ginger hair, should be called “Shark” remains a mystery to me.

Indeed why he alone should have that designation when so many of his compatriots make an equally skilled job of matching and bettering his exploits by turning equine base metal into gold is probably a case for the Monopolies Commission, assuming of course that his nickname was acquired from his training days. But then it sometimes feels like there are other aspects of Irish stables’ domination of the major British jumps prizes every season that need referring to that body. All else seems to be failing as this year’s early false dawn at Cheltenham soon reverted to the usual bloodbath for the home team.

As a domestic aperitif to their top teams’ coming over at the weekend to Newmarket, there is the small matter of Punchestown, five days starting tomorrow and concluding on the day the 2,000 Guineas welcomes Luxembourg from the Coolmore boys to challenge the two prime Godolphin candidates, red-hot favourite Native Trail and market second-best, Coroebus.

Coroebus’ style had many admirers on the day he and Native Trail both won their 2021 finales, the favourite in the Dewhurst and the back-up in a lesser race.

But Native Trail is the only unbeaten colt of the pair, a distinction shared by Luxembourg and just two others from the 24 that stood their ground before the field is whittled down once more at noon today. I dealt with the case of William Knight’s Checkandchallenge, winner of a deep race at Newcastle last weekend. Coincidentally the other unbeaten colt is also trained in Newmarket, in his case by David Simcock. He is Light Infantry, twice a winner last year, and like Checkandchallenge, a son of the deceased Fast Company.

At the time he was in training as a juvenile with Brian Meehan, Fast Company showed many of the attributes of a potential Classic winner, but after an excellent half-length second in the 2007 Dewhurst behind the following year’s Derby winner, New Approach, he never raced again.

I was a regular on Thursday work mornings at Manton in those days and it was a great disappointment to Brian when Fast Company was sold to Godolphin and sent to be trained by Saeed bin Suroor. If either of these relative longshots wins on Saturday it will be a long-awaited accolade for a horse that had been under-valued for all his stud career despite being in the care of Darley throughout.

In the manner of such things, now Fast Company’s son Checkandchallenge has inevitably been attracting interest from people who could more easily shrug off the disappointment of a below-expectation run in the race – be that fourth or eighth as anything better would be a triumph - than Mr Hetherton whose colours he has carried hitherto.

I recall a last-minute pre-Derby sale by Karl Burke around a decade ago that probably made all the difference financially to his training career which at the time looked to be stalling or probably worse. I hope this very smart, sweet-travelling colt does his owner (whoever he may be on the day) and his talented trainer proud.

I make no apology for interjecting here on the Nicholls plans for Punchestown this year which are miserly in the extreme. Nicholls has never been as enthusiastic a Punchestown challenger as Nicky Henderson – I travelled to see Punjabi at the meeting four years in a row for two wins, a nose second and a pulled up (wind).

At time of writing on Sunday afternoon, Clan Des Obeaux, the impressive Aintree winner, is ranged alongside Allaho, Minella Indo, Galvin and Al Boum Photo in Wednesday’s Punchestown Gold Cup. He is a 3-1 shot, a short-enough price for all the domination of Aintree if that quartet turns up.

The only other possible for the UK jumps champ is Monmiral, slated to take on the two wonderful mares Honeysuckle and Epatante, the latter another Aintree winner, in her case over further. With around €160K to the winner in each of a dozen Grade 1 races over the five days, you would think sending a horse with place chances might be worth the risk even for cautious Paul.

Yet tomorrow’s card, worth in all €735k, hasn’t attracted a single English, Welsh or Scottish challenger. It will be great to watch on Racing TV all week but with the wistful thought that surely things should be different.

Back in the Guineas, Camelot, by Montjeu rather than the more influential Galileo (both sons of Sadler’s Wells) but hardly his inferior in terms of producing Derby winners, is Luxembourg’s sire.

When asked about his abilities, Aidan O’Brien said he has superior speed to Camelot, a horse that just saw off French Fifteen in an epic battle for the 2,000 Guineas ten years ago. He followed up in the Derby and the much-sought third leg of the Triple Crown was denied O’Brien and son Joseph when Camelot lost the St Leger by three-quarters of a length to Encke, a horse trained by the subsequently disgraced Mahmood Al Zarooni for Godolphin.

That was Camelot’s first defeat after five successive wins and prevented the first English Triple Crown since Nijinsky graced the 1970 season for an earlier O’Brien – the revered Vincent.

It's always great when the champion two-year-old gravitates to winning the 2,000 Guineas and after his bloodless Craven Stakes return that is entirely possible. Charlie has the horse with the form, but Luxembourg has the Coolmore badge all over him, not just on the sire’s side, but the dam is by Danehill Dancer, a sprinter that ran in Michael Tabor’s colours but far exceeded his decent racing ability when sent to stud.

The mare Attire provides another major link to the glorious past of Ballydoyle. Ben Sangster, her owner-breeder, is of course a son of the late Robert Sangster whose inheritance from his Vernons Pools-owning father funded the domination of the international bloodstock market in the 1980’s and 90’s. Along with Vincent’s supreme training skills and the business acumen and animal husbandry of Vincent’s son-in-law, John Magnier, they were an unbeatable partnership for more than two decades.

I’m with Luxembourg to prove on Saturday that blood is thicker than form lines and take him and Ryan, not to mention Aidan and the Coolmore team, to beat Native Trail with the underdog Checkandchallenge coming from the pack late on to clinch third. Easy, really, this flat racing.

I have loved the 2021-22 jumps season as my little daily job editing fromthestables.com which involves sharing the thoughts of around 15 trainers, ended with a nice win in the William Hill Radio Naps table. The 2022 summer table started yesterday and we were off to a flier when Rogue Millennium won for Tom Clover at 9/2. Only seven months to go!

- TS

UK National Hunt: An Indefensible Pattern and an Existential Threat

/in /by

Racing fans, at least within their social media microcosm, tend to get aerated about all sorts of passing flotsam and jetsam. Often, there is little substance at the heart of the vexation; but not always.

This week, racing twitter has been raging about the fact that the longed-for clash at Punchestown between the Champion Hurdler, Honeysuckle, and Supreme Novices' Hurdle demolition job, Constitution Hill, will not come to pass. The reality, we're given to understand, is that it was never more than an accidental ejaculation from the understandably excited owner of the latter, Michael Buckley. He was, it seems, about ten months premature.

Seen by many as a 'swerve', it may be considered perfectly reasonable at the end of the season that one horse - or the owner or trainer of said horse - should call time on the campaign. However, that sharp quill of Kevin Blake's outlined here the wider issue of the ease with which top class (or even those relatively close to top class) animals can legitimately avoid each other through the season, and even at the spring festival finales, particularly in Britain.

The other debate, if one can call it that, has been about the prospect of a fifth day at the Cheltenham Festival. There's no market on Betfair for this but, if there was, 'Yes' for a fifth day by 2025 would surely be 1.01 in spite of most racing fans being staunchly opposed to the proposal.

That got me thinking about the National Hunt Pattern, and jump racing field sizes in general and, ultimately, a good bit more besides. Here's where I got to with it all...

How are field sizes generally in UK National Hunt racing?

In 2009, the first year in our Query Tool database, there were 34043 runners with 3375 winners (including dead heats). That gives an average National Hunt field size in 2009 of 10.09. Here are the annual figures from then until the end of 2021, the last full year of data:

 

 

The wins column likely includes some dead heats, but we don't need to split atoms with this dataset to get the gist. What stands out for me is that the number of runs (second column in the above table, blue bars in the below chart), 2020 / Covid aside, have been remarkably consistent at around 31,500 to 33,000. That's plus or minus 5% in the main. But the number of races has risen significantly in that time meaning that field sizes (right hand column in the table, orange line in the chart) have declined notably:

 

 

What is the National Hunt Pattern?

What the National Hunt Pattern is not is part of the European Pattern Committee (EPC), whose function is to determine the most important races across the continent, allocate a grading system to them, ensure their ongoing quality for the allocated grade, and manage the race programme to avoid clashes as far as is possible. The EPC works under the umbrella of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA), but leads the way globally in this area. More details of their work can be found here. In essence, the EPC serves the primary purpose of helping to ensure the ongoing quality of the breed through an appropriately hierarchical race programme.

The Jump Pattern Committee (JPC) "aims to assist the provision of a co-ordinated programme of quality races in each age, sex and distance category" for British jump racing. Fair enough, on the face of it at least. But the JPC is a largely autonomous UK-only entity and, as such, does not come under sufficient scrutiny to ensure its race programme is fit for purpose.

The Jumps Pattern comprises Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3, with all Grade 3 contests being handicaps. There are also Listed races which are on the periphery of the Pattern. The composition of the Jumps Pattern is described thus:

The Committee aims to achieve a balance of Grade 1, Grade 2 and non-handicap Listed races within the Pattern and Listed race structure, so that there are more Grade 2 races than Grade 1, and that the total number of Grade 2 and non-handicap Listed races should be at least double the total number of Grade 1 races

There are challenges within the relationship between the volume of lesser Pattern non-handicaps (G2 and Listed) and the volume of Grade 1 races. These challenges are exacerbated by the expansion of flagship meetings like the Cheltenham Festival from three to four (and soon to five?) days: for every additional Grade 1 there may need to be two lesser Pattern races added. As we will see, this is hard to legitimise against the wider context of a dwindling horse population, particularly in jump racing.

 

How are Pattern Race field sizes in UK National Hunt racing?

Having set the scene with the macro field size vista, let's now call in on Pattern races in particular. For the purpose of this analysis, I'll include Listed races.

 

 

We again see a consistency of runners, in fact a slight increase up to around 2018. But those runners have had to be shared amongst a much larger number of Class 1 (Grade 1,2,3, Listed) races. In 2009/10, the two-year average number of such races was 151 (and a half). In 2019/21, the years around Covid2020, the average number of Class 1 National Hunt races in the UK was 208 (and a half). That's inflation, over the course of a single decade, of a staggering 37%.

 

 

Predictably, field sizes have shrunk, from north of 11.5 in 2009-2011 to south of 10 since 2017.

But it gets worse.

When we remove the Grade 3 handicaps from the picture, what is left is deeply concerning.

 

 

Although the Pattern inflation is less stark - 'only' a 26.5% rise between 2009 and 2021 - the average field size has dropped from a high of 10.57 in 2010 (and a three-year average of 10.23 between 2009 and 2011) to 7.67 last year, and a three-year average of 7.84.

Oh. Dear.

As a reminder, in 2009 the average UK jump race field size overall was 10.09 and last year it was 8.6. The proliferation of Class 1 additions has seen field sizes in those races plummet in relation to all NH races in Britain, and the trendlines are disconcerting, to say the least.

 

 

Why does field size matter?

Why should we even care about declining field sizes anyway? The main reason is that there appears to be a fairly reliable correlation between the number of runners in a race and its competitiveness; and, further, to public interest and engagement, best measured by betting turnover. More betting turnover normally equals more money to the levy, which gets ploughed back into the sport for things like prize money, administration, and equine and human welfare projects. It's a pretty virtuous cycle, if you ignore the fact that some punters have to lose in order to keep the cycle rotating.

The magic number in field size terms, from a betting turnover perspective, tends to be eight. That is the number of runners at which a race pays three places for each way bets, a factor that is, I understand, a strong driver for bet placement.

 

What are the underlying problems?

There are broad issues and a more narrow one in play here. The broader issues are economic and equine; specifically, how affordable it is to keep a jumps horse in training in a recession; and how breeding, allied to modern training practices, is perhaps not allowing horses to stand as many races as was historically the case.

The narrow issue is probably the one upon which to focus. It must be apparent to absolutely everyone, regardless of agenda, that there is too much racing. There are too many fixtures with too many races at each fixture for the horse population to service.

These are the total number of races run in UK National Hunt, by year, since 2009, as per the excellent BHA data resource here.

 

 

And here are the percentages of races with fewer than six runners (i.e. five or fewer) over the same time frame:

 

 

There is strong correlation between the overall number of races in a given year, and the percentage of small field races in that year. Which, again, ought to surprise absolutely nobody. These charts are included as merely another representation of the "too much of a good thing is a bad thing" mantra espoused by anyone who cares about the sport.

Looking only at Class 1 races, the same issue is clearly at play; but also, many of these races have benefited from the ratings inflation of the past decade, and may no longer satisfy the quality criteria outlined at the end of this Jumps Pattern document. Of course, there is likely to be a revision to the quality tariff to accommodate this season's downward re-engineering of official marks.

 

A (way too) simple solution

So how do we arrest the decline and put the sport back on the front foot, in terms of competitive racing at least?

Let's recast the landscape. What if we had the 2009 fixture list and the 2021 volume of runners? And let's imagine this might happen by 2025: some chance, but we're in the realms of hypothesis so here goes...

 

 

In this far from outlandish projection we've got about 450, or roughly 12%, fewer races. That's 64 or so fewer fixtures, assuming seven-race cards. Little more than one a week.

And the payoff for that brave stance is a field size average of nearly ten, which is close to optimal from both bookmaker/betting turnover and human interest perspectives.

To counter the "it wouldn't work" brigade, there is a precedent for culling a chunk of races and achieving a satisfactory outcome: in 2019, France Galop reduced the number of races by 20% with virtually no impact on betting turnover. Indeed, British bookmakers, having historically driven the clamour for 'more product', are now on the side of 'less is more'.

Moreover, there is a precedent in Britain, too. In 2014, the BHA garnered agreement for the removal of around 100 chase races which were under-subscribed. However, from the press release which accompanied the announcement it was clear how reluctant certain signatories - notably the Racecourse Association - were to the arrangement.

And there is one further, more recent, piece of evidence upon which to call. In 2020, as the world became infected, British racing was, alongside football, the first professional sport to return to action. It did so with an innovative plan that addressed the situational needs of both maintaining a right to operate during a pandemic, and tailoring a programme to the horse and stakeholder populations. We had a normal Royal Ascot, in terms of timing at least, with the 1000/2000 Guineas shortly before and the Derby/Oaks shortly after.

This fixture list was formulated by the BHA and featured fewer fixtures, with more races per fixture; and a focus on moving some of the top end prize money to the lower tiers of the class spectrum in order to keep owners/trainers in the sport. These changes, which - granted - were satisfying pent up demand from a six-week hiatus, produced better field sizes and stronger betting turnover when it was needed most. [It also led to the decision to permit jockeys to ride only at one meeting per day, which has been retained and which has led to both an increase in jockey wellbeing and a greater spread of opportunity in the riding ranks].

Less was more, post-Covid. Less was more in France. Less was more when the chase programme was re-imagined.

 

In the Class 1 space, there are far too many races. As can be seen in the tables below, where comparisons are again difficult due to the recent Covid interruption, the three years 2009-2011 (green table) had a total of 290 Class 1 non-handicaps (give or take dead heats), which was just about the same number as in the two-year period of 2019 and 2021 (blue table). How did we get here?!

 

 

The ongoing (though now largely complete) reconfiguration of the shape of the handicap ledger should be used as benchmarking against which to downgrade and/or delete 12-15 races from the current Pattern. After all, ratings inflation is quite likely an accidental but key factor in why we have aggregated such a bloated Pattern in the first place.

An alternative, which has been touted by that man Kevin Blake amongst others, is to convert all UK Grade 2 races into handicaps to complement the existing Grade 3 arrangements. This would have the general effect of rendering such contests more competitive both in terms of field size and win chance (i.e. fewer odds on shots). It's a bold shout but we are in desperate times and, as such, desperate measures are called for.

 

Why this won't happen

There are lots of good, eminently sensible reasons why changes similar to those mooted above, and elsewhere by others, ought to be implemented for the health of the sport going forwards. Unfortunately, there are two reasons such beneficial amendments will not occur.

The first is funding: racecourse funding comes, in large part though to varying degrees, from 'media rights' payments. These are amounts of money paid for the live pictures (by bookmakers, mainly) for the right to consume/broadcast that content. The image below, taken from a DCMS-sponsored analysis of the funding of horseracing, infers as much.

 

 

The problem is that this part of the racecourse business funding model amounts to a 'more races equal more money' situation, not entirely unreasonably perhaps. But, as we're seeing increasingly in football, the expansion of the programme - be it the never-ending Champions League, a preposterous 48-team World Cup in 2026, or myriad low grade seven furlong handicaps at Wolverhampton - leads to a dilution of the product and a commensurate dampening of interest in the mind of the customer.

The funding model needs to focus more on incentivised payments for a broader contribution to racing's ongoing wellbeing. To that end, with a little topological thinking, less can be more without impacting racecourse payments  negatively. Indeed, such a move may lead to a positive impact on media rights payments.

However, racecourses do not only generate revenue from media rights. Some actually wash their faces at the turnstiles, too! As a consequence, any proposed reduction in fixtures or number of races is likely to be perceived as a threat to on-site profits for all that there must surely be a way to condense predominantly from those fixtures that could not exist without media rights funding.

Further, the legacy nature of the allocation of fixtures means that racecourses assert a right of ownership over a subset of historical fixtures that exist outside of the BHA's core list. If these fixtures exist outside of the core - which one can assume means outside of what the BHA considers healthy for the sport - why do they still receive Levy Board funding as well as media rights payments? After all, the Levy Board are working towards "the improvement of horseracing" according to their mission statement. Funding a surfeit of races/fixtures which are unilaterally staged by the racecourses is sustaining the over-supply - and therefore diminishing field sizes - and must be counter-productive to engagement with the sport. If tracks want to claim ownership of these fixtures, they should not expect Levy funding to support them. The Levy is funding all (bar one) fixtures in 2022, but should take a much stronger stance on fixture funding in 2023 and beyond.

A further problem with the historical fixtures is that they seem impervious to performance metrics. That is, regardless of whether they are failing to produce requisite runner numbers their place in the calendar is assured; meanwhile, other tracks - which have fewer or no 'historical fixtures' - offer excellent prize money (that typically leads to satisfactory field sizes), but cannot claim the same fixture allocation as those maintaining a sort of birth right on the fixture list.

The second, closely related, is politics. Racecourses are by a mile the most powerful organism in the industry's food chain. If they don't want to do something, they don't do it. And it will take an extremely skilled practitioner indeed to persuade them of the leap of faith required to pivot towards the model suggested up above.

They argue that it is not the volume of fixtures but, rather, the number of times each horse runs in a year that is the problem: if the horses just run half a race more on average, we're all good. Sounds logical enough, doesn't it? Until you realise that one of these factors (annual runs per horse) has been virtually constant for a long time. Because bill-paying owners want horses to run as frequently as is prudent these averages are almost impossible to change - successive chief executives at BHA have tried; so if horses cannot run more often, and if we cannot get more horses in training (see second chart below), the only controllable component is the volume of races.

 

[Image credit: statista.com]

 

Horses in training, by year [Source: BHA]

 

It is not only the tracks, however, in the political pyramid of racing that would likely wail and gnash teeth at any proposal to reduce the Pattern. Plenty of horsepersons - trainers and owners, mainly - would seek to maintain or even extend the current status quo: for many of these men and women, any Graded race is a good one to win, regardless of how hollow the verdict, or the implications for the sport.

 

What we need

In the end, this gets to be about the political hierarchy of British racing, and how it is fundamentally - and perhaps irreparably - fractured. Since 2015, there has been a structure in place called the Members' Agreement, widely known as the tripartite agreement, which defines how decision-making can happen. In a nutshell, who needs to approve what.

It was widely heralded as a new united frontier for the sport; in reality, sadly, it has been no such thing. Indeed, we are now at the point where racecourses and some parts of the Horsemen's Group, primarily the Racehorse Owners' Association (ROA), seek greater power and autonomy from the BHA, racing's regulator. They want to say yes to more money without a bother for the implications on the race programme, or anything downstream of that, such as the breed or public sympathies. Charlie Parker, President of the ROA, and who therefore purports to represent owners but has never sought our opinion on, well, anything, was strongly critical of the money being turned down in this leader late last year.

To be clear, the 'more money' offer was based on 'more races'. True, that was for all-weather racing, an area not referenced in this article, but once the genie is out of the bottle...

In January of this year, incoming chief executive of the National Trainers' Federation, Paul Johnson, stated his organisation's commitment to increasing prize money in the sport via means other than more races, noting that the scourge of small fields was a major challenge. Johnson was formerly Head of Racing at the BHA, responsible amongst other things for race planning, and therefore knows better than almost anyone the difficulties of producing a balanced programme despite persistent requests for more races.

To Charlie Parker, and others at ROA, however, the checks and balances introduced by the tripartite agreement are now, just six years later, suffocating. They want to own the decision-making process in spite of demonstrating their absence of pastoral care for the sport. The likes of Jockey Club Racecourses, whose 'About Us' page loudly trumpets, "The mission of The Jockey Club is to act for the long term good of British racing in everything we do" is currently fighting off outcry relating to selling rights of heritage races to Playtech who will use them in fixed odds games of chance - at a time when they, like all others in the industry, should be distancing themselves from such games for the short term good of British racing; and also dealing with the firestorm emerging from their fait accompli to add a fifth day to the Cheltenham Festival. More product, less quality, less interest. Plenty of seven and a half quid Guinness sold, though, so, yeah...

These entities and their money-grubbing, even in the face of charters that expressly reject such behaviour, are precisely why we don't just continue to need a committee - that includes the BHA - to make decisions, but why the golden vote should sit with the regulator.

Much is wrong with the balance of power in racing and it very much suits certain stakeholders for the sector's issues to be laid at the feet of the BHA. But the myopic machinations of others sitting around that table could derail the whole industry within ten years and, were that to happen, the first to go would undoubtedly be jump racing.

- Matt

Gold Nuggets #12: Choose Your Battles

/in /by

In this episode of Gold Nuggets I consider a part of the puzzle that is often overlooked, and one that - if done even nearly correctly - gives us the very best chance of coming out in front. It is particularly relevant now that the longer days mean numerous evening meetings and a daily race count regularly north of forty. So, in the video that follows, I cover the crucial art of race selection.

In the video, I refer to a previous mini-series I produced called 'The Price Is Wrong', which you can look at here.

Contents:

00:00 Intro
00:40 "The Price is Wrong"
03:25 'Top down' Race Selection
05:20 How "My Races" helps
07:40 Quick Race Analysis Example
13:15 'Bottom Up' Race Selection
19:45 Summary

Draw Bias 2022: Part 1

/in /by

It has been a couple of years since I wrote some articles on the draw and, with the flat season hitting stride now, it is a good time to revisit the subject, writes Dave Renham. The draw will always have special place in my heart because it was essentially where my racing journey began.

Sprintline 2002: The Effects of the Draw - co-authored by Dave Renham

Sprintline 2002: The Effects of the Draw - co-authored by Dave Renham

While at university I became interested in horse racing stats and I soon realised that there was a potential betting edge in focusing on certain sections of the draw at a few specific courses. Back then, in the late 80s and early 90s, the courses and distances with the strongest biases were at Beverley over five furlongs, Thirsk over five and six furlongs (especially on firmer ground), Chester from five to seven furlongs, Lingfield (turf course) five to seven furlongs, and Sandown over five furlongs when the stalls were placed on the far side. The beauty back then for draw punters like myself was that there was a decent edge for those of us who considered ourselves ‘in the know’. I was able to find plenty of betting opportunities that represented good value.

Unfortunately, if predictably, it was not long before draw biases started to be shared in racing articles which were then followed by comprehensive books on the subject. Indeed, I co-authored one of them!

As with many things, when a good source of highlighting value bets is found, within a few years the edge starts to disappear. This is very much a horse racing trait: good ideas have their initial edge because the majority of people are not aware of that value finding approach. As time goes on, however, the betting public and the bookmakers catch up and, as a result, prices tend to contract and the value begins to erode. This has happened to some considerable extent with the draw over recent years.

Using Chester’s five-furlong trip as an example, let us examine what has happened to the prices of the ‘best’ two stall positions over the past several years. The stalls in question are draws 1 and 2, those closest to the inside rail. I am looking here at handicap races with eight or more runners where draw bias tends to be more consistent:

 

 

Chester’s tight track has long shown a bias to lower draws and this has generally been well documented and widely understood. However, nowadays your average punter has had more exposure to draw biases than they did twenty years ago which explains the diminishing price pattern. The graph above shows that horses drawn in stall 1 had an average decimal SP price of 6.58 from 2003 to 2007, dropping to 5.19 over the most recent five-year period. Likewise, we have seen the prices of horses drawn in stall 2 dropping from 9.06 to 6.46.

Some statisticians may observe that despite the relatively solid sample sizes average prices can be skewed by an occasional bigger-priced runner. That would certainly be possible, so it make sense to compare the median prices as well. To remind you of your school maths class, median is the middle value when all are ordered from lowest to highest. This gives us another type of average, the findings of which are here:

 

 

Once again we see the same pattern: the prices for both draws 1 and 2 have dropped quite significantly over the period of study.

A further measure to illustrate how the draw affects the prices at Chester is if we look at all stall / draw positions from 2017 to 2021 and compare their average prices. We already know that the average for horses drawn in stall 1 has been 5.19 and stall 2 is 6.46. I have graphed the average prices for each stall over 5f at Chester, although due to small sample sizes in higher drawn runners I have combined those drawn in stall 8 or higher:

 

 

As we can see, despite a slight ‘blip’ with stalls / draws 6 and 7, the average price increases as the stall position increases (and is thus further away from the favoured inside rail). Looking at these data, we could confidently argue that at Chester over 5f the draw impacts on price more than any other factor.

 

I briefly want to go back to discuss the price reduction we saw earlier in the lowest two stall positions when comparing 2003-2007 average SP prices with 2017-2021. This has actually not coincided with the draw bias getting stronger; in fact, the draw bias has stayed roughly the same. This can be illustrated when breaking our draw data into three time frames between the years 2003 and 2021. The actual draw positions are also split into three: low third, middle third and high third.

 

 

As can be seen, low draws have continued to dominate in each time frame. This is further evidence of the fact that the price reduction is almost certainly down to more punters being aware of how fundamentally important the draw is to the business of finding winners at Chester over this minimum 5f trip. From a betting perspective, therefore, much or all of the value in lower drawn horses has now evaporated. This can be illustrated in terms of percentage returns (ROI%) if backing all horses from the bottom third (low) of the draw over different time frames.

 

 

I still find it remarkable that up to 2015 you could have made a blind profit at SP by backing all low drawn horses in 8+ handicaps over five furlongs at Chester. All good things come to an end, however, and that has not been the case in recent years. In the five year period 2016 to 2021, losses accrued were 13.7% of stakes. Ouch.

Appreciating and therefore deploying draw bias is not merely about looking at the performances of different sections of the draw; no, we also have to be acutely aware of how the market adjusts for such factors.

Being able to exploit the draw to one's advantage has also been affected in recent years by racecourse officials using other means of negating any potential bias. One way this can be done is by moving running rails which potentially changes part of the ground over which races take place as well as sometimes subtly changing the race distance by a few yards. The other, more notable, fly in the ointment has been the change in watering systems that most tracks now use. Some 20 or 30 years ago many course watering systems were badly affected by wind speed and direction, and hence certain parts of the track remained drier - and therefore quicker - giving rise to draw biases. Nowadays, though, the equipment has become more sophisticated and the water is spread much more evenly.

I mentioned earlier that Beverley over five furlongs used to be one of the strongest draw biases back in the day, and this can be seen when you look at the data. From 1998 to 2003 in 8+ runner handicaps the low third of the draw housed the winner 63.3% of the time, while the highest third won just 10% during that period. From 2004 to 2009, the strength of this bias appeared to dip a little but the low third still accounted for 53.4% of all the winners (high won a still dismal 15%). However, from 2010 to 2015 the low win percentage dropped to just under 42%, while high had narrowed the gap with 23.1% winners; and, from 2016 to 2021 it dropped to 40.8% low and 26.5% high. Over time, that's quite a big change. Yes, low draws are still favoured but the huge edge that there once was is no more.

Exactly why this has happened I cannot be sure; it is probably down to better watering and maintenance of the track. However, what is interesting is the fact that the prices on the best drawn horses have not changed much. Comparing the 2003 to 2007 segment with 2016 to 2021 here are the average prices for stalls 1 and 2:

 

 

Horses drawn in stall 1 have, on average, started at slightly shorter prices in the last five seasons (12 versus 11.42); stall 2 has seen an increase but a modest one when you consider the draw bias is nowhere near as potent these days. The median prices back up the raw average data as the table below shows:

 

 

What seems to be happening here therefore is the market at Beverley is still assuming the draw bias is as strong as it was back in the early 2000s. Unlike the Chester market, which has adapted as one might expect, this Beverley market has not: in reality, the odds should on average be higher than they currently are. The bitesize takeaway is that lower draws are generally poor value.

Another thing that has changed markedly in the past few years is the general appreciation that draw bias does not only occur over sprint trips. Pontefract, for example, over a mile and a mile and a quarter, boasts two of the strongest draw biases currently in play. Looking at 8+ runner 1 mile handicaps at Pontefract, it can be seen that this is a case of the betting market now cottoning on to the draw bias. This is in stark contrast to data gathered in 5f handicaps at Beverley.

Let’s compare once again the same two time frames - 2003 to 2007 with 2017 to 2021. Here are the average prices for stalls 1 and 2:

 

 

The average price of horses drawn in stall 1 has nearly halved; the figures for horses drawn in stall 2 have also contracted quite noticeably. Once again the median prices correlate strongly:

 

 

What this means, therefore, is that although low draws hold a significant edge over 1 mile at Pontefract the current prices on offer are so low on average, that they too are now generally poor value. We can see this in black and white when I share the fact that from 2009 to 2013 backing all low drawn horses at Pontefract over 1 mile in 8+ runner handicaps would have yielded a 13% profit; from 2017 to 2021 this flipped to a 22% loss.

This Ponte pattern mirrors the change we saw earlier in the Chester 5f prices and subsequent poorer value of low drawn runners in recent seasons.

In order to fully make the most of draw bias, or indeed perceived draw bias, it is clear we need to be aware of market factors, not just the raw draw data splits. Let us close with a look at Catterick over six furlongs – again focusing on 8+ runner handicaps. Because this six-furlong trip is contested around a bend there is a perception that lower draws have a slight edge. This is borne out when we compare the combined average prices of the three lowest drawn runners with the three highest drawn runners going back to 2016.

 

 

A difference on average of two and a half points. That may not seem much of a difference but over several races it can make a critical difference to our bottom line. During this time frame both sections of the draw have won virtually the same number of races (26 versus 27), implying that there is no bias to lower drawn runners at all. At least partly as a consequence of this perception, backing the three lowest drawn stalls would have produced crippling losses of 45.8% to SP, while blindly supporting the top three stalls would have produced a profit of 10.5%.

One observation when comparing odds over time might legitimately be that field sizes truncating has had a bearing on prices. While that impact should be spread across the full range of stalls anyway, this final chart also helps to imply that field size is likely not the main factor at play here.

 

 

It is a little 'busy', but essentially we have two lines which we might expect to be correlated - perceived win chance (expressed as SP) and actual strike rate (expressed as win %). Although the win strike rates jump around a bit, the blue dotted 'trendline' shows no advantage; compare that, however, with the orange trendline for average win odds which rises from low to high.

 

*

The aim of this article is to illustrate the important links between draw position and price, and to highlight the changing nature of some draw biases. Profitable betting is about getting value – well drawn horses only offer us value if the price is right. Also, we need to be aware that 'poorly' drawn horses can also offer value, but again only if the price is right.

- DR

Monday Musings: Racing Chess via Knight, Queen’s and a Check mate

/in /by

I have a friend who, whenever he sees the name Fast Company against a runner in a race on soft ground or worse, thinks it’s going to win, writes Tony Stafford. More often than not, his inability to back anything much beyond 5-2 prevents his turning intuition to action, thereby preventing his backing a nice long-priced winner.

The fact Fast Company horses do win in extreme conditions exercised my curiosity yesterday morning and I thought I’d better look at the facts. Actually there is little difference between the late stallion’s stats - he died two years ago at a time when his fee at Kildangan Stud was €12,000, the highest of his ten-year career.

From good to firm through all readings to heavy, his winning ratio moved little away from the 23% achieved on heavy ground. What he hasn’t got so far though is a top-class three-year-old colt. Jet Setting, trained by Adrian Keatley, did break the mould with an unexpected defeat of the brilliant Minding in the 2016 Irish 1,000 Guineas, a run that was out of kilter for much of her form. Twice well behind Minding either side of that, she did win a Group 3 easily as an older filly.

Now, though, Fast Company has a Classic contender, and from an unexpected source. In Friday’s opening Listed race on Newcastle’s All-Weather finals day, Checkandchallenge thrust himself into the consciousness with a smooth defeat of a trio of 100-plus rated colts.

Winner of his only previous start at two, when he got up to beat a Karl Burke horse (rated 80 before Friday) he had only inches to spare, but that was after having at least six lengths to make up inside the last furlong.

I was at William’s stable coincidentally last Tuesday when we saw Checkandchallenge quite by luck in the distance. “There’s my Guineas horse”, said William with a laugh, adding that Newcastle on Friday would tell him whether the idea was fatuous or had legs.

Legs it certainly has. With Danny Tudhope at his unobtrusive, business-like best, Checkandchallenge sat at the back of a six-runner field leavened with a couple of three-year-olds who had followed Godolphin’s number two for Saturday week over the line at Newmarket last October.

Coroebus, preferred in some quarters last year to the number one and European champion 2021 juvenile, Noble Trail, won the Autumn Stakes by two lengths from Imperial Fighter with Dubai Poet third. At Newcastle, Checkandchallenge had that pair behind him but in reverse order when the winning margin was slightly less, although Tudhope hardly had to exercise his arm muscles to achieve the result.

Obviously now, after his 4-1 on cakewalk in the Craven Stakes last week, Noble Trail is shorter than ever as the 5-4 market leader, but Coroebus is still next in line at 7-2 ahead of the leading Coolmore / Aidan O’Brien contender Luxembourg, who is a 9-2 chance.

As one very long-tested punter always used to tell me: “you can’t eat value”, but there seems to be a wider disparity in the prices of said Coroebus and Checkandchallenge than the collateral form merits. Ladbrokes and Coral, who work in concert (same firm) for the most part these days, both offer 40-1 about the Rathmoy Stables horse, whereas he is more like 16-1 elsewhere.

Incidentally, when with my Editor I ventured up the steps to meet the trainer in the luxuriously-appointed owners’ room, among the guests enjoying the facilities and watching the day’s racing was Karl Burke.

On Friday morning, when discussing Checkandchallenge with his trainer, Knight ventured: “Karl really likes Aasser <the horse Checkandchallenge beat at Wolverhampton> and thinks he’s much better than 80. That’s why he runs in the handicap at Lingfield today!” He won it comfortably if narrowly at 7-2!

By then Checkandchallenge had already endorsed the previous form and the wonder of it was how little the Lingfield market was affected in the last moments before the race. He’ll go up a few pounds tomorrow while Checkandchallenge, having won both his races, will be eligible for a mark and it won’t be anywhere in the 80’s!

Imperial Fighter, about whom the Sky Sports Racing team laboured to find an excuse to explain the reversal of his form with Dubai Poet, ended 2021 rated 110 and Dubai Poet was 104. Coroebus was 115 and Noble Trail 122. I reckon Checkandchallenge deserves 114 but the officials might go with the “favourite didn’t get a run at a crucial time” get-out and mark Knight’s horse down accordingly.

William Knight spent much of his early career assisting Ed Dunlop at Newmarket before moving to Sussex for ten years, training with success at the late Anne, Lady Herries’, Angmering Park.

When the chance unexpectedly came around two years ago to take over a vacancy left by David Lanigan at Neville Callaghan’s former Rathmoy Stables in the Hamilton Road, he jumped at the opportunity. No wonder! The yard had been totally rebuilt – apart from the trainer’s house – by its new absentee owner.

Last year, his first full season, brought an equal best number of winners and a clear best in terms of prize money. Sir Busker, a large part of the success in recent years, collected $150,000 for finishing fifth in one of the Dubai World Cup feature races last month and the signs already are that better is to come for this upwardly-mobile trainer.

New owners are the life-blood of established trainers and at Newbury on Saturday, Moktasaab, a Shadwell discard picked up for 110,000 guineas last autumn, adorned Harry Redknapp’s colours and won most impressively first time out from a big field.

Moktasaab is due for a big hike and looks a natural for the valuable summer handicaps around ten furlongs, and another of Saturday’s winners is in line for even more drastic attention by the officials.

Last autumn, Ian Williams took the opportunity to strengthen his stable with a few judicious purchases from Arqana and the most dramatic result from the new intake came at Musselburgh in the £100k, better than half of which to the winner, Betway Queen’s Cup over one mile, six furlongs. Ridden chilly at the back, again by Tudhope, Enemy came through in the last two furlongs, eased clear and, while winning by four-and-a-half lengths, ten would be a closer estimate of his superiority.

Williams is one of the more innovative of trainers and Enemy, before he’d broken sweat in the UK was sent as part of the team to Dubai earlier in the year. Originally with John Gosden but transferred midway through his three-year-old season, he joined the Graffard stable which now houses the bulk of the Aga Khan horses.

A consistent strong finisher in his French races, he had been running at just short of ten furlongs there but after Williams secured him for €92k for Tracey Bell and Caroline Lyons, he made the team for Meydan.

Non-country-owning proprietors have the chance to have their horses’ travel paid if they can get two runs on the board during the Carnival and Williams is an ace at contriving that for his inmates. East Asia, Dubai-owned and a money-spinner from nowhere in the UK last year, was lined up for a Group 3 where Godolphin’s Manobo was the stand-out in February, but Williams added Enemy to the field to secure the reimbursement, having given him a warm-up run on arrival.

After East Asia finished well, vastly exceeding anything he’d achieved before to take a lucrative second place behind the favourite, Enemy came through in his wake for a closing fourth. Unfortunately, whereas it is possible to find films of pretty much every horse race around the world, it proved beyond the wit of me to do so.

I just had the trainer’s assurance that if he had not been baulked on the home turn, Enemy would have come out on top in the domestic battle of the 66-1 shots. That resulted in a rise in his mark from 94 to 99, matching East Asia’s new rating.

When I sat down in the buffet at Park Paddocks on Tuesday for the first stage of the Craven Breeze-Up sales, Williams and his shrewd assistant Ben Brookhouse told me they had got 8-1 with four places about Enemy, by which time he had shortened generally to 4-1.

I resolved then to make him my nap for Saturday in the ongoing quest for the William Hill Radio Naps Table prize but deserted him on the morning, idiotically noting a “suspicious drift” back out to 8’s. Ian tried to reassure me. “It won’t start that price!” he asserted. It didn’t, the SP was a ridiculous 11-1.

I guessed the Chester Cup might be the target but yesterday Ian said that he’s always wanted a proper Melbourne Cup challenger and this very sound animal fitted the bill, as he surely does class-wise. With the ability to quicken at the end of a 14-furlong handicap here, the racing requirements of Flemington look assured.

“We had Magic Circle a few years back.  He won the Henry II and the Chester Cup but he didn’t have the soundness you need for the race. Hopefully this horse has the full armoury”, said the trainer. You wouldn’t put it past him.

- TS

Gold Nuggets #11: Trainer Profiling

/in /by

Inspired by Dave Renham's excellent recent trilogy of articles around trainer micro angles, this week's Gold Nuggets is about empowering anybody curious enough to go searching for such morsels of wagering goodness for themselves. In it, I show you how to do it, where to store your tasty titbits, and offer two examples to get you started.

It's all in the video below, or you can cut to the chase using the handy contents list here:

00:00 Intro
00:34 What is trainer profiling?
04:15 How to avoid back fitting your angles
07:05 Example 1: Paul Midgley
23:00 How to store trainer profiles within Geegeez Gold
28:00 Example 2: Johnny Murtagh

Oh, and when you find something you like, if you're happy to share, please do leave a comment at the bottom of this post.

Thanks, and good luck!

Matt

 

Your first 30 days for just £1