Run Style Bias in Handicap Chases: 2024/25 Season Update (Part 2)

This is the second of two articles where I am revisiting run style bias, writes Dave Renham. As with the first piece, which can be read here, the focus is on handicap chases with seven or more runners, and all data has been sourced from UK NH racing between 1st January 2017 and 6th October 2024. I looked mainly at the distances of 2m1f or less and 2m3f-2m4f last time; in this follow up I concentrate on races of 2m5f-2m6f and 2m7f-3m2f.

Before getting into the numbers here is a quick recap of which type of horse fits each run style profile:

Led – horses that lead or dispute the lead early, usually within the first furlong; known as the front runner.

Prominent – horses that race close to pace tracking the leader(s).

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack or just behind the mid-point.

Held up – horses that are held up at, or near the back of the field.

Front Runners in UK Handicap Chases (7+ Runners)

Let us begin by comparing the A/E index for the ‘Led’ group (early leaders/front runners) versus the other three groups combined (Prominent, Mid Div, Held Up) across different field sizes for ALL distances.

This graph is illuminating. It clearly shows that the front running edge in handicap chases becomes stronger as the number of runners increases. The Impact Value comparison shows the same trend:

Once we get to 11 or more runners the front running bias becomes extremely potent, strengthening further still as we hit 14+ field sizes.

It’s time now to look at the stats over 2m5f-2m6f.

Run Style in UK Handicap Chases, 2m5f-2m6f (7+ Runners)

My first port of call in terms of this distance band is a comparison of the win strike rates for each run style group. It is important to note that these figures are based, as in the previous article, on the wins to runs ratio within each specific run style group. Here are the splits:

As with the first article we see a bias towards front runners, and a tapering related to early race position thereafter; but at 2m5f-2m6f prominent racers were not far behind front runners. Horses that raced further back early in the race continued though to struggle.

Let me share the A/E indices next:

There is good correlation with the wins to runs ratio here. The 1.15 figure for front runners indicates good value but it is less impressive than the 2m1f or less figure of 1.23, and also the 2m3f-2m4f figure of 1.31. Prominent racers are within 0.01 of the magic 1.00 figure. The held up A/E of 0.63 is low and has offered punters really poor value.

Onto the Impact Values now:

The same sloping pattern can be seen again, displaying good correlation across all three metrics. The 1.5 Impact Value for front runners is, like the A/E number, below the figures achieved at the two shorter distances examined in the first article (1.65/1.75). However, the front running bias is still in evidence, such types winning 50% more than might be expected.

Now I want to examine the individual course run style stats over 2m5f-2m6f. Less than half of the UK NH courses race over this trip so there are only 15 courses to share. Below is a table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. As with the first article I have colour coded it to help make the biases clearer. Numbers in green are positive, numbers in red are negative.

Aintree didn’t make the table due to a small sample size of races. Having said that, four of the 14 races were won by front runners and the average field size was 20. Hence, from limited data, front runners at Aintree look to have an edge.

The strongest front running biases from the other tracks appear to be at Cartmel, Kelso, Sedgefield and Taunton. Ffos Las consistently played against front runners at the shorter distances reviewed in part one, and this has again been the case. Front runners have also struggled at Leicester.

Before moving onto the longer distance races let me share the run style figures over 2m5f-2m6f restricted to horses from the top three in the betting. These stats also share potential profit and loss amounts to SP:

This table helps to show the positive correlation between the A/E indices with the ROI column. Horses from the top three in the betting that have taken the lead early have been excellent value and profitable to follow; those that raced midfield or were held up early have been very poor value.

Run Style in UK Handicap Chases, 2m7f-3m2f (7+ Runners)

Once again I’ll start by sharing the strike rates for each group (wins to runs ratio):

Even at longer distances horses that get to the front early have a strong edge. The same pattern across all run styles continues with ‘L’ outcompeting ‘P’ which in turn out outcompetes ‘MD’ with ‘HU’ bottom of the pile once more. Horses that led in handicap chases at this distance range won twice as often as horses that raced in midfield.

The A/E indices are next up:

These indices suggest that the front running bias is stronger for races between 2m7f and 3m2f than it is at those from 2m5f to 2m6f. Indeed, if one had correctly predicted the front runner(s) in each race from 2m7f-3m2f one would have profited to SP to the tune of £842.05 (ROI +31.6%). Finally let me share the Impact Values:

These values confirm how strong the bias is, so now may be a good time to compare the A/E indices and Impact Values for front runners across the four distance bands covered in the two articles:

This confirms the consistently strong figures across the board, with the 2m3f-2m4f distance edging it in terms of having had the strongest bias over the period of study. But there looks to be value and a well above average strike rate at all distances reviewed.

Back to the longer (2m7f-3m2f) distance band and let me share the run style stats when restricting to those horses that were in the top three in the betting only.

Front runners from the top three in the betting have performed extremely well showing how profitable they could have been. Again, we have terrible returns for mid division and held up runners.

It’s time now to look at the 2m7f-3m2f course run style splits looking at wins/runs and A/E indices. The format will be familiar by now:

The courses with the strongest front running biases in this distance bracket have been at Ayr, Cartmel, Catterick, Cheltenham, Chepstow, Exeter, Hereford, Hexham, Ludlow and Musselburgh, while front runners have struggled at Bangor, Carlisle and Haydock.

Overall Front Running Biases in UK Handicap Chases (7+ Runners)

There were eight courses that showed a consistently strong bias across all distances. They were Cheltenham, Doncaster, Exeter, Hexham, Kelso, Musselburgh, Sedgefield and Southwell. Two courses saw front runners at a disadvantage overall, those being Bangor and Ffos Las. The remaining courses offer front runners some sort of edge although its strength varies from track and trip to track and trip.

-------------

Summary

That concludes this two-parter. In summary, since 2017 in handicap chases of 7+ runners, front runners have enjoyed an edge at all distances and at nearly all courses. The strength of the bias has been as strong in 2023 and 2024 as it has ever been so when analysing such races make sure you consider how the race is likely to be run from a run style / pace perspective. I have no doubt it will improve your bottom line.

And, if you're not using the pace maps on this site, you are at a distinct disadvantage to those who are. The maps on geegeez.co.uk are more accurate than any other pace maps I've used, and are worth the subscription fee alone in my opinion.

- DR

Other Recent Posts by This Author:

• Two-Year-Old Sires in 2025
• When Horses Change Stable: Part 2
• When Horses Change Stable: Part 1
• ‘SR’ Ratings on the Flat (Turf)
• From a Place, to a Different Place